Does Age Impact Safety and Efficacy During Pulse‐Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation?

• DOI: 10.1161/jaha.124.037959
• Publication Date: 2025-04-23T10:54:57Z
• Authors: Antonio Dello Russo; Claudio Tondo; Stefano Bianchi; Vincenzo Schillaci; Saverio Iacopino; Michela Casella; Antonio Rossillo; Ruggero Maggio; Sakis Themistoclakis; Matteo Bertini; Maurizio Russo; Mario Volpicelli; Graziana Viola; Roberto Rordorf; Marco Schiavone; Yari Valeri; Jacopo Colella; Pietro Rossi; Fabrizio Tundo; Gianluca Zingarini; Antonio De Simone; Lorenzo Bianchini; Alessandro Di Vilio; Paolo Compagnucci; Maurizio Malacrida; Giulio Zucchelli; Francesco Solimene
• Keywords: Clinical endpoint

Background There is no evidence evaluating efficiency, effectiveness, and safety outcomes in older patients the context of pulsed‐field ablation technology for atrial fibrillation. We aimed to compare safety, efficacy, acute long‐term (≥75 years) with younger ones. Methods enrolled consecutive who had undergone fibrillation FARAPULSE system (Boston Scientific) at 15 centers. Patients were stratified by age (<65, 65–74, ≥75 efficacy profiles these groups compared. Results A total 1082 included: 108 (10%) years old, 374 (34.6%) 65–74 old 600 (55.4%) <65 old. Older displayed a more pronounced risk profile compared their counterparts, characterized significant higher burden comorbidities. No differences terms procedural metrics found. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved all patients. An overall low rate procedural‐related complications reported (3.0%) without difference between young ( P =0.241). During mean follow‐up 342±111 days, primary end point occurred 605 748 (80.9%) available outcome information. The arrhythmia recurrence ranged from 14.4% 26.9% =0.011). Conclusions Drawing findings, using demonstrated swift, safe, effective outcomes, mirroring comparable pattern observed rates line literature Registration URL: clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT05617456.