Yes, PFA is much safer, even to the extent of obviating the need for a TEE (trans-esophageal echocardiogram, like an endoscope put down the esophagus). Even so, it is damaging tissue. Otherwise, the spurious signals that make the atrium fibrillate would still pass over the PFA'd tissue. It's the scarring, or fibrosis, that makes the signal stall...it can't get over that tissue like it can healthy endothelial tissue.

It's a good sign that your heart rate is near normal, but an HR nearly 90 would not be cause for concern, not in the early weeks after the procedure. An EP might want to consider an intervention if it were at or above 90 for more than a few months, but I am out of my depth on this. I just know from anecdotal reports that a significantly elevated HR is to be expected for many/most of us.

Note only do RFA and PFA use different technologies but they require very different surgical techniques to do the procedure. So EPs have to be retrained when moving from RFA to using PFA. So I or someone else can tell you our latest experience from a 2nd RFA ablation but that doesn't mean squat. . It's comparing apples to oranges. Now the EPs and researchers who study this these results it will mean a lot to study. But they will use very scientific protocols to study these differences between to 2 variations. Something none of people on this board have clue on how to understand.