BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Cardiol. Jul 26, 2026; 18(7): 120973
Published online Jul 26, 2026. doi: 10.4330/wjc.120973
Table 3 Comparison between high-power short-duration/very high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation and pulsed-field ablation for atrial fibrillation
Characteristic
HPSD/vHPSD RF ablation
Pulsed-field ablation
Mechanism of actionThermal injury through resistive and conductive heatingNon-thermal irreversible electroporation
Lesion formationWider, relatively shallower lesions; still dependent on tissue heatingTissue-selective myocardial ablation
Procedural efficiencySignificant reduction in RF and procedure time compared with conventional RFGenerally among the shortest procedure times reported
Pulmonary vein isolation successExcellent acute success (> 95% in most contemporary studies)Excellent acute success (> 95%)
Freedom from AF recurrenceNon-inferior or improved compared with conventional RFComparable to HPSD/vHPSD in available comparative studies
Esophageal injuryReduced compared with conventional RF but not eliminatedVery low incidence; major theoretical and clinical advantage
Phrenic nerve injuryPossible, particularly with right-sided lesionsGenerally reduced due to tissue selectivity
Steam popsPotential risk, especially at very high powerNot applicable
Cerebral embolic eventsReported in some HPSD trials (e.g., SHORT-AF, POWER-FAST III)Cerebral lesions reported in some studies; long-term significance uncertain
Dependence on contact force and catheter stabilityHighLower
Operator dependenceModerate to highPotentially lower
Long-term evidenceExtensive clinical experience and long-term follow-upGrowing but still limited long-term experience
Technology maturityWell established and widely availableEmerging and rapidly expanding
Current limitationsThermal injury, protocol heterogeneity, operator dependenceLimited long-term data, evolving safety profile, device-specific learning curve


Write to the Help Desk