Brígido, Alexandra Régia Dantas

Abstract Introduction High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional power delivery (CPD) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety profile remain uncertain. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HPSD with CPD ablation for PVI in patients with AF. Random-effects models were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Seven RCTs with 1,006 patients (514 HPSD, 489 CPD) were included. No significant differences were found in freedom from arrhythmia during the follow-up period (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41–1.45; p=0.424). AF recurrence did not differ (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.65–1.36; p=0.733) between groups. HPSD had a significantly shorter procedural (MD -22.61 min; 95% CI -33.18, -12.04; p<0.001) and RF ablation (MD -15.70 min; 95% CI -20.86, -10.55; p<0.001) times, with comparable fluoroscopy time (MD 0 min; 95% CI -0.44, 0.45; p=0.99) between groups. Conclusion In patients with AF undergoing PVI, HPSD did not increase freedom from arrhythmia as compared with CPD ablation, however it was associated with shorter procedure and RF ablation times. These findings suggest that HPSD may be a more efficient approach without compromising clinical outcomes.

ABSTRACT Background High‐power short‐duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional power delivery (CPD) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), though its efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety profile remain uncertain. Aims To evaluate and compare the efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety of HPSD versus CPD ablation strategies for PVI in patients with AF through a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing HPSD with CPD ablation for PVI in patients with AF. Random‐effects models were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). R version 4.4.2 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eight RCTs with 1094 patients (558 undergoing HPSD and 536 undergoing CPD ablation) were included. No significant differences were found in freedom from arrhythmia during the follow‐up period (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.41–1.45; p = 0.424). AF recurrence did not differ (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59–1.16; p = 0.268) between groups. HPSD had a significantly shorter procedural (mean difference [MD]: −21.93 min; 95% CI: −31.34, −12.53; p < 0.001) and RF ablation times (MD: −13.87 min; 95% CI: −19.46, −8.27; p < 0.001). No differences were observed in fluoroscopy time and first‐pass isolation for right and left pulmonary veins. There was no difference in esophageal lesion rates, pericardial, or neurological complications, but there was a higher incidence of steam pops in HPSD (RR: 3.42; 95% CI: 1.45–8.09; p = 0.005). Discussion Although HPSD ablation did not significantly improve freedom from arrhythmia or reduce AF recurrence compared to CPD, it demonstrated enhanced procedural efficiency, with shorter procedure and RF ablation times. Despite the higher rate of steam pops, the overall safety profile was similar between both groups. Conclusion High‐power short‐duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to conventional power delivery, with the added benefit of shorter procedure and RF ablation times. However, HPSD ablation was associated with increased occurrence of steam pops.

Introduction: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional power delivery (CPD) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety profile remain uncertain. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HPSD with CPD ablation for PVI in patients with AF. Random-effects models were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). R version 4.4.2 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Seven RCTs with 1,006 patients (514 HPSD, 489 CPD) were included. No significant differences were found in freedom from arrhythmia during the follow-up period (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41–1.45; p=0.424). AF recurrence did not differ (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.65–1.36; p=0.733) between groups. HPSD had a significantly shorter procedural (MD -22.61 min; 95% CI -33.18, -12.04; p<0.001) and RF ablation times (MD -15.70 min; 95% CI -20.86, -10.55; p<0.001). No differences were observed in fluoroscopy time and first-pass isolation for right and left pulmonary veins. There was no difference in esophageal lesion rates, pericardial, or neurological complications, but there was a higher incidence of steam pops in HPSD (RR 3.42; 95% CI 1.45–8.09; p=0.005). Conclusion: In patients with AF undergoing PVI, HPSD did not increase freedom from arrhythmia as compared with CPD ablation, however it was associated with shorter procedure and RF ablation times with a similar safety profile.