Evidence Hub

Impact of saline irrigation on haemolysis, silent cerebral lesion incidence, thermal dynamics, and bubble formation in pulsed field ablation with a variable-loop circular catheter

Zhou D, Li M, Song Z, Jiang C, Wang W, Tang R, Zhao X, Li C et al.

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026

25 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Aims: Though pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has demonstrated an excellent safety profile in reducing collateral injury to the oesophagus and phrenic nerve, it is still associated with specific effects, including electrode heating, haemolysis, and electrolysis due to excessive energy dispersion. This study aims to assess whether saline irrigation during PFA application could mitigate these risks.

Methods and results: To comprehensively evaluate the effect of irrigation with the variable-loop circular catheter (VLCC), the following experiments were performed: (i) ex-vivo potato model: to evaluate the lesion depth, bubble formation, and thermal effects in different irrigation regimens; (ii) in vitro blood pool and cardiac ablation: to determine the haemolysis status and tissue temperature change after PFA; (iii) in vivo swine ablation (n = 8), and (iv) clinical randomized trial (n = 25): to compare the efficacy and safety profile between low (4 mL/min) and high (30 mL/min) flow irrigation using the VLCC. Though peak core temperatures at 5 mm depth were all < 50°C under low- and high-irrigation, high irrigation significantly mitigated the instant electrode and deep tissue heating both in the potato and isolated cardiac models. Ex vivo potato slices showed that high-flow irrigation produced the deepest lesion sets when compared to low-flow irrigation (5.94 ± 0.29 mm vs. 5.36 ± 0.33 mm, P = 0.043). Assessment from a high-speed camera and bubble detector demonstrated that high-flow…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 25 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