Indirect comparison suggests Sphere-9 PFA catheter may have higher efficacy than Farawave for persistent AF
This analysis used matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods to indirectly compare two pulsed field ablation (PFA) systems in patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). Data came from two separate trials: the SPHERE Per-AF trial (N=212) using the dual-energy, wide-footprint lattice-tip Sphere-9 catheter (Medtronic) and the ADVANTAGE AF trial (N=260) using the pentaspline Farawave catheter (Boston Scientific). The primary outcome was 12-month freedom from arrhythmias.
The adjusted analysis found the Sphere-9 system was associated with a significantly higher probability of 12-month freedom from arrhythmias compared to the Farawave system (77.4% vs. 63.5%; OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.80, p=0.003). Fluoroscopy time was also significantly shorter with the Sphere-9 system (mean difference -14.4 minutes, 95% CI: -16.2 to -12.5, p<0.01). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the primary safety outcome between the systems (adjusted event rates: 1.8% vs. 2.3%; OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.17-3.42, p=0.72). Specific adverse event rates, serious adverse events, and tolerability data were not reported.
Key limitations include the inherent constraints of an indirect treatment comparison, as patients were not randomized head-to-head between the two devices. The authors note results must be validated in prospective randomized trials. The analysis suggests possible differences in efficacy and efficiency exist among PFA systems, but clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously as associations from indirect evidence, not established causal superiority.