Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Extensive Electro-Anatomical Guided Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Electro-Anatomical Guided Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in the Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This multicenter, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of extensive electro-anatomical guided pulsed field ablation (EXT-PFA) with traditional radiofrequency ablation (RF) in treating persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). The trial seeks to determine if EXT-PFA, which integrates anatomical and electrogram-guided strategies, can provide superior outcomes in terms of safety and effectiveness compared to the standard RF ablation approach.

Inclusion Criteria:

1.Adults aged 18-80 years diagnosed with persistent atrial fibrillation. 2.Ineffectiveness or intolerance to at least one Class I or III anti-arrhythmic drug.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Major valvular diseases needing surgical intervention.
2. Presence of a left atrial thrombus on recent imaging.
3. Recent myocardial infarction or severe heart failure (LVEF ≤ 30%).
4. Current Severe Infection.