Wang, Weijia

Abstract Aims Pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation offers shorter procedural times and improved safety compared with thermal ablation, but the optimal anaesthesia strategy remains uncertain. Most centres in the USA use general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation, whereas monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation may be a safe and efficient alternative. Objectives To compare procedural efficiency and safety between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia for pulsed field ablation. Methods and results Consecutive adults who underwent pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation between 2024 and 2025 at Marshfield Clinic Health System were included. The anaesthesia approach was determined by operator preference. Procedural times, medication use, complications, and patient tolerance were recorded prospectively. Among 200 patients, 100 received monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation, and 100 received general anaesthesia. The mean age was 67 years, 42% were female, and the mean body mass index was 33 kilograms per square metre. Monitored anaesthesia care shortened case duration (77 vs. 95 min; P < 0.001) and laboratory time (118 vs. 153 min; P = 0.002) and required fewer adjunct medications (P < 0.001). Twenty-five procedures (25%) were challenging due to cough or motion but were all completed safely. Complications occurred in one monitored anaesthesia care case and six general anaesthesia cases (P = 0.054). Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in all patients. Conclusion Monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation was safe, efficient, and resource-sparing compared with general anaesthesia for pulsed field atrial fibrillation ablation.