Keževičiūtė Monika, Marinskis Germanas, Sudavičienė Diana, Barysienė Jūratė, Bileišienė Neringa, Radauskaitė Greta, Aidietis Audrius, Račkauskas Gediminas
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, LT-0310 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Center of Cardiology and Angiology, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics, LT-08406 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025 May 20;26(5):33490. doi: 10.31083/RCM33490. eCollection 2025 May.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia, affecting 2-3% of the adult population, with an increasing prevalence due to demographic shifts; however, detection methods have also improved. This rhythm disorder is associated with significant morbidity, manifesting through symptoms that worsen the quality of life, as well as with adverse outcomes and increased mortality. The substantial AF burden on the healthcare system necessitates the development of effective and durable treatment strategies. While pharmacological management represents the first-line approach for AF, the limitations associated with this approach, including side effects and insufficient efficacy, have promoted the evolution of catheter ablation techniques that isolate pulmonary veins (PVs) and, thus, disrupt arrhythmia-causing impulses from the atria. Currently, three energy sources have gained U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European regulatory approval (The Conformité Européene (CE) mark certification) for catheter ablation: radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoballoon ablation (CBA), and, more recently, pulsed-field ablation (PFA). RFA has subsequently become an effective treatment, demonstrating superior outcomes in randomized controlled trials compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy. CBA has also proven to be a safe and effective alternative, particularly for patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF, showing comparable efficacy to RFA and similar rates of complications. Meanwhile, PFA is emerging as a promising technique, offering non-inferior efficacy to conventional thermal methods while potentially minimizing the thermal damage to adjacent tissues associated with RFA and CBA. Despite higher equipment costs, the advantages of PFA in reducing complications highlight its potential role in AF management. However, considering the novelty of PFA, no data currently exist comparing this strategy with thermal techniques. Therefore, further research is needed to improve the management of AF and patient outcomes to reduce healthcare burdens.
心房颤动(AF)是最常见的室上性心律失常,影响2%-3%的成年人口,随着人口结构变化患病率不断上升;不过,检测方法也有所改进。这种节律紊乱与显著的发病率相关,表现为降低生活质量的症状,以及不良后果和死亡率增加。AF给医疗系统带来的巨大负担使得有必要制定有效且持久的治疗策略。虽然药物治疗是AF的一线治疗方法,但这种方法存在的局限性,包括副作用和疗效不足,促使了隔离肺静脉(PVs)从而中断来自心房的致心律失常冲动的导管消融技术的发展。目前,有三种能量源已获得美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)和欧洲监管机构批准(欧洲合格认证(CE)标志认证)用于导管消融:射频消融(RFA)、冷冻球囊消融(CBA),以及最近的脉冲场消融(PFA)。RFA随后成为一种有效的治疗方法,在随机对照试验中显示出比抗心律失常药物治疗更优的结果。CBA也已被证明是一种安全有效的替代方法,特别是对于有症状的阵发性AF患者,其疗效与RFA相当,并发症发生率也相似。与此同时,PFA正在成为一种有前景的技术,其疗效不劣于传统热消融方法,同时可能将与RFA和CBA相关的对相邻组织的热损伤降至最低。尽管设备成本较高,但PFA在减少并发症方面的优势凸显了其在AF管理中的潜在作用。然而,考虑到PFA的新颖性,目前尚无将该策略与热消融技术进行比较的数据。因此,需要进一步研究以改善AF的管理和患者预后,从而减轻医疗负担。