Evidence Hub

Abstract 4366463: Left Atrial Posterior Wall Isolation Plus Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs. Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone by Pulsed Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis

S. Rathore, Akshat Banga, Keshav Bhattar, A. Yadav, Ibrahim Al Shyyab, Mahendra Kumar

Circulation, 2025

1,046 participants

Abstract

Background:

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging energy source in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), offering tissue selectivity and procedural efficiency. While pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) remains the cornerstone of ablation, adjunctive posterior wall isolation (PWI) is increasingly considered, particularly in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the comparative benefits and risks of PVI + PWI versus PVI alone using PFA remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of PVI + PWI compared to PVI alone in patients with persistent AF undergoing PFA.

Methods:

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Random-effects models were used to calculate Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The inverse variance method with DerSimonian–Laird (DL) of Tau2 was used to calculate mean differences (MDs) with CIs. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The primary endpoint was the recurrence of atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardias (AF/AT) over the average follow-up of one year after the procedure. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, mean procedure time, and mean fluoroscopy time.

Results:

Five studies, including 1,046 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the recurrence of atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,046 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free