← Return to Pulse field ablation
DiscussionComment receiving replies
Replies to "@cstrutt52 This study suggests otherwise, now three months old: https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Pulsed-field-ablation-was-not-superior-to-radiofrequency-ablation-in-paroxysmal-atrial-fibrillation I'm always happy to see success..."
@gloaming I totally agree with you! I didn't read the suggested study but I have read pros and cons of PFA; in the big scheme of things, it is still fairly new and long term studies will have to be reviewed BUT I asked for PFA because of its safety issues (in my opinion.) And the most important part is the skill and experience of the electrophysiologist and his team. I feel like I truly got a winner! My doc was one of the top 10 in my area, highly praised by patients and my cardiologist and I went to a A+ rated surgical facility. I could not have asked for better care. I am beyond pleased!
@gloaming. I did take another look at the studies. There are many of them ranging from 59% to over 90% for PFA. Generally, the sooner after diagnosis it is done, the better. Not a good sign for me who waited years. Apparently, the success rate jumps up for a second ablation. My clinic's studies (Mayo) reports a success rate of 75-80% at 12-month reviews. Again, I suspect that the skill of the doctor is key; more than the procedure itself.
Connect

@gloaming I think my cardiologist feels like he has a chance to get to the tissue he needs to ablate with PFA. So I am hoping that will lead to success where the RA or CA couldn’t be used so near to my esophagus. I am a small woman and perhaps that also made a difference. But it worked for my husband so far so I hope it works for me. Thanks for sharing the study.