Abstract
Regional differences in pulsed field ablation (PFA) adoption for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with additional posterior wall ablation (PWA) in Asia remains unknown. We hereby report our experience on the safety and efficacy of PFA in AF ablation. Consecutive AF patients who underwent PFA from September 2022 to January 2024 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period at 12 months. Safety endpoints included 30 days of all-cause death, cardiac tamponade, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization. One hundred and one (72.3% males, 79.2% pAF) patients underwent PFA for AF. Thirty-one (30.7%) had structural heart disease with mean LVEF of 57.4 ± 8.1% and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1.4 ± 1.3. Twenty-nine (28.7%) underwent additional PWA (PVI + PWA) using PFA. PWA was acutely successful in all patients. Patients who underwent PWA were more likely to have persistent AF and require general anesthesia and electroanatomic mapping (all p < 0.05). Total PFA applications for PVI, LA dwell time, procedural time, and fluoroscopy time were similar between the PVI-only and PVI + PWA groups (all p > 0.05). The 1-year atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates were 10% for pAF and 21% for the persistent AF group. The primary efficacy endpoint was not significantly different between the PVI-only and PVI+PWA groups (12-month KM estimates 90.3% [95% CI, 83.3-97.3] and 82.8% [95% CI, 68.1-97.4], respectively). There were no complications related to PFA use. PFA can be safely, effectively, and efficiently adopted for AF ablation. Additional PWA, if pursued, had similar procedural metrics to the PVI-only strategy without increased complications.