Indirect treatment comparison of two pulsed field ablation systems for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation.

Authors

Kazuo Matsumoto, Kelly A van Bragt, Fred J Kueffer, Waruiru Mburu, Khaldoun G Tarakji

Published in

Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing. Sep 10, 2025. Epub Sep 10, 2025.

Abstract

Catheter ablation is beneficial in patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), and pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising energy source to safely and durably create ablation lesions. However, catheter-specific "PFA waveforms and designs" result in effectiveness and safety profiles that are not transferable to other PFA technologies. A head-to-head comparison between the dual-energy, wide-footprint lattice-tip (Sphere-9, Medtronic) and pentaspline PFA catheter (Farawave, Boston Scientific) is not yet available. Consequently, this study aims to perform an indirect treatment comparison (ITC).
Outcomes (efficacy, safety, and procedure times) between the SPHERE Per-AF trial (N = 212; NCT05120193) and ADVANTAGE AF trial (N = 260; NCT05443594) studies were compared using matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods. Matching was performed based on subjects' baseline characteristics.
After matching, SPHERE Per-AF showed a higher probability (OR 0.51 (95% CI:0.32 - 0.80), p = 0.003) of 12-month freedom from arrhythmias (77.4%) compared to ADVANTAGE AF (63.5%). There was no evidence of adjusted probability of a primary safety difference (OR 0.76 (95% CI:0.17 - 3.42), p = 0.72) between trials (1.8% vs. 2.3%, respectively). Adjusted procedure and pulmonary vein isolation time were comparable, but fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in SPHERE Per-AF compared to ADVANTAGE AF (-14.4 min (95% CI:-16.2, -12.5); p < 0.01).
PFA is generally safe and efficient; however, in this ITC, SPHERE Per-AF showed a higher probability of treatment success in PerAF patients compared to ADVANTAGE AF. Overall, these results underline possible differences even amongst PFA systems, which must be validated in randomized trials. Until then, MAIC methods fill the current evidence gap. Registry and the Registration No. SPHERE Per-AF: NCT05120193 and ADVANTAGE AF: NCT05443594.

PMID:
40928625
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 10 Sep 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.