Boston Scientific accounts are for healthcare professionals only.
Create an account to access online training and education on EDUCARE, manage your customer profile, and connect with customer support and service teams.
My Boston Scientific account
Access your online applications and manage your customer profile.
Quick Links
Call customer care
Now approved for PVI and PWA in persistent AF patients
Explore ADVANTAGE AF trial results
FARAPULSE has built the largest and most comprehensive clinical evidence base in pulsed field ablation, with unmatched volume in peer-reviewed studies, registry participation, and patient outcomes across pivotal trials and real-world registries.*1
Lead physician: Chierchia G.
FARAPULSE (n=134) outperformed conventional cryoballoon ablation (CBA, n=135) in a 6-center randomized clinical trial. Compared to CBA, FARAPULSE had lower rates of complications, faster and more predictable procedures leading to reduced costs per patient at 30 days.
Lead physician: Bisignani A.
In a national multicenter registry of over 650 AF ablation procedures, FARAPULSE (n=348) consistently outperformed historical RFA/CBA (n=325) in predictability. Over 90% of FARAPULSE procedures were completed in under 90 minutes, compared to only 60% with RFA/CBA.
Lead physician: Della Roca D.G.
Read more about the first study showing a significantly lower PV reconnection in redo patients for FARAPULSE (19.1%) than thermal, CBA (27.5%) or RFA (34.8%).
Lead physician: Chaumont C.
See the data: one-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in the PFA group compared with the cryoballoon group (87.9% versus 77.7%).
References
1. Ekanem, E., Neuzil, P., Reichlin, T. et al., Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03114-3
2. Boersma, L., Széplaki, G., Dello Russo, A., et al., Real-world experience with the pentaspline pulsed field ablation system: one-year outcomes of the FARADISE registry, EP Europace, Volume 27, Issue 9, September 2025, euaf182, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaf182
3. Reddy, V., et al., "Pulsed Field Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation With Continuous ECG Monitoring Follow-Up: ADVANTAGE AF-Phase 2." Circulation 151.0 (2025).
4. Reichlin, Tobias, et al. "Pulsed field or cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation." New England Journal of Medicine 392.15 (2025): 1497-1507
5. Reddy VY, Gerstenfeld EP, Natale A, et al., Pulsed field or conventional thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine.2023;Nov2;389(18):1660-1671. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2307291
6. Reddy V, Mansour M, Calkins H, et al., Pulsed Field vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia Burden. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84(1):61-74. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.05.001
7. Chierchia G., et al., Pulsed Electric Field versus Cryoballoon to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PERFECT-PAF) Randomized Trial: A Periprocedural Clinical and Cost Analysis. ESC, Sept 2, 2024.
8. Bisignani, Antonio, et al., "National workflow experience with pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation: learning curve, efficiency, and safety." Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology (2024): 1-10.
9. Della Rocca DG, Marcon L, Magnocavallo M, et al., Pulsed electric field, cryoballoon, and radiofrequency for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation: a propensity score-matched comparison, EP Europace, 2024;Jan26(1)euae016. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae016
10. Chaumont C, Hayoun C, Savoure A, et al., Pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter versus cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: results from a prospective comparative study. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2024;Mar12;0:e03314612 2024doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.033146
