Efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes of pulsed field ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

J Interv Card ElectrophysiolMay 29, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchCardiology

Kartik Mehta, Heena Arshad, Inamullah Arshad et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis assessed pulsed field ablation (PFA) for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter in adults. Across 18 studies, the pooled rate of acute bidirectional CTI block was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.8-99.5; I 2 = 47.1%). Follow-up findings included 2.0% recurrence of typical flutter and 97.2% freedom from CTI-dependent flutter. Reported complication rates were generally low, although coronary vasospasm was more frequently reported and estimates were heterogeneous. The authors describe PFA as promising but note that larger prospective and randomized studies are needed to establish long-term efficacy and clinical utility.

Key findings

  • Acute bidirectional CTI block was achieved at a pooled rate of 98.1% (95% CI: 96.8-99.5; I 2 = 47.1%).
  • During follow-up, typical atrial flutter recurred in 2.0%; freedom from CTI-dependent flutter was 97.2% (I 2 = 0%).
  • Coronary vasospasm was reported in 33.4%, with substantial heterogeneity; coronary artery stenosis occurred in 0.5%.

Why it matters

The pooled results suggest that PFA can achieve acute CTI block and maintain freedom from typical flutter in many treated patients. The safety findings also highlight coronary vasospasm as an outcome requiring attention when interpreting PFA experience. Because the evidence is predominantly observational and long-term efficacy remains uncertain, these estimates inform understanding of an emerging approach rather than establishing comparative benefit.

What to keep in mind

The evidence was predominantly observational, and the authors call for larger prospective and randomized trials to establish long-term efficacy and clinical utility.

Source

Published in J Interv Card Electrophysiol. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Cardiology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.