A major review compared two ways to treat atrial fibrillation: pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The main goal was to see if one method caused more kidney injury than the other. The review looked at data from over 3,800 patients.
The main finding was that there was no significant difference in the overall risk of kidney injury between the two treatments. The total rate of kidney problems was about 2% for patients getting PFA. This means both procedures appear similarly safe for the kidneys in general.
However, when researchers did a special analysis that removed one study with unusual results, they found a higher risk of kidney injury with PFA. This suggests that while the overall risk is similar, there might be a small increased chance in some situations. The review also found that markers of blood cell damage were higher in the PFA group.
The study had some limitations, including differences between the included studies. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the small risk difference. Patients should discuss these options with their doctor to decide the best treatment for their situation.