Feature Articles in Cardiovascular Pathophysiology

Background: Thromboembolic events, though infrequent, remain a significant complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, largely related to endothelial damage. Cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency ablation can induce pro-coagulant responses, whereas pulsed-field ablation (PFA), a novel non-thermal electroporation-based technique, has shown tissue selectivity with potential endothelial-sparing effects. Methods: We aimed to compare PFA and second-generation CB ablation regarding endothelial injury in patients with paroxysmal AF. In this single-center prospective observational study, 25 patients with paroxysmal drug-refractory AF underwent pulmonary vein isolation using either a pentaspline PFA catheter (n = 14) or a second-generation CB catheter (n = 11). Circulating von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF) levels were assessed before and after ablation as a biomarker of endothelial damage, alongside routine laboratory and echocardiographic parameters. Procedural characteristics were also analyzed. Results: Baseline demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic data were comparable between groups. PFA was associated with significantly shorter skin-to-skin procedure time (59 vs. 94 min, p = 0.005) and left atrial dwell time (44 vs. 79 min, p < 0.001) compared with CB ablation. Importantly, vWF levels decreased significantly after PFA (−7.6%, p = 0.007), while CB ablation showed a non-significant increase (+9.5%, p = 0.155). The between-group difference in percent change of vWF was statistically significant (−5.6% vs. +8.3%, p = 0.006). Conclusions: PFA was associated with reduced endothelial injury and shorter procedural times compared with CB ablation, suggesting a potential advantage in lowering thromboembolic risk. These findings support the concept of PFA as an “endothelial sparing” ablation modality. However, the PFA procedure was associated with a significantly greater extent of myocardial injury, as reflected in circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T values, compared to CB ablation (p = 0.007). Larger, randomized studies are warranted to confirm these results and evaluate long-term clinical outcomes. Full article