A Comparison of Very High-Power Short-Duration Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation in Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation

P. Biehler (Aalen)1, V. Adam (Aalen)2, P. Hägele (Aalen)1, S. Hanger (Aalen)1, A. Pinchuk (Aalen)1, S. Löbig (Aalen)1, C. Wächter (Marburg)3, P. Seizer (Aalen)1, S. Weyand (Aalen)1
1Ostalb-Klinikum Aalen Innere Medizin II, Kardiologie und Angiologie Aalen, Deutschland; 2Ostalb-Klinikum Aalen Pädiatrie Aalen, Deutschland; 3Universitätsklinikum Giessen und Marburg GmbH Klinik für Innere Medizin - Schwerpunkt Kardiologie Marburg, Deutschland
Background:
Optimizing the recurrence-free outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a primary focus in electrophysiology. The use of very High-Power Short-Duration (vHPSD) ablation, utilizing 90W for 4 seconds with the QDOT MICRO™ Catheter (Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA), aims to provide a faster and more effective approach with low complication rates. However, long-term data on recurrence rates remain limited.

Objective:
This study aimed to compare procedural duration, complication rates, and efficacy after 12 months in patients receiving PVI for AF with High-Power Short-Duration (HPSD) ablation (50W for 15 seconds) and vHPSD ablation (90W for 4 seconds).

Methods:
We enrolled 309 consecutive patients with persistent or paroxysmal AF who underwent de novo PVI at our center between 2019 and 2023. Patients receiving HPSD (n=220) were compared to patients undergoing vHPSD (n=89). Additional ablation lines were placed in cases of severe fibrotic substrate, and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation was performed if atrial flutter was detected.

Results:
Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The mean procedural time was significantly shorter in the vHPSD group (87.29 minutes) compared to the HPSD group (115.6 minutes) (P<0.01). Entry and exit block were achieved in all patients.
Major complications were rare and did not significantly differ between groups (0.45% in HPSD vs. 1.12% in vHPSD, P=0.49). Minor complications were also similar (2.73% in HPSD vs. 4.49% in vHPSD, P=0.48). Notably, radiation exposure, measured by dose area product, was significantly lower in the vHPSD group (754 ± 752.2 cGy·cm²) compared to the HPSD group (1298 ± 1087 cGy·cm²) (P<0.01). Fluoroscopy time was also reduced in the vHPSD group (7.83 ± 4.71 minutes) compared to the HPSD group (13.67 ± 7.16 minutes) (P<0.01).
Recurrence rates after 12 months, excluding a 90-day blanking period, showed a trend favoring the vHPSD group (12.36%) over the HPSD group (20.00%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.14).
In 11 patients with recurrences, re-ablation has been performed to date. Among them, all pulmonary veins (PV) were reconnected in 4 patients, 3 PV were reconnected in 1 patient, and 2 PV were reconnected in 6 patients. No specific pulmonary vein was reconnected more frequently than others.

Conclusion:
vHPSD ablation (90W/4s) for PVI in AF patients offers a significantly faster procedure with lower radiation exposure and comparable safety and efficacy to traditional HPSD ablation (50W/15s). Although the difference in long-term recurrence rates was not statistically significant, the trend suggests a potential benefit of vHPSD in reducing AF recurrence. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings. These results support the clinical utility of vHPSD ablation as a viable option in AF treatment protocols.