Background: High‐power‐short‐duration (HPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a viable alternative to low‐power‐long‐duration (LPLD) RF for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Nevertheless, trials showed conflicting results regarding atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences and few data concerning complications. Therefore, we conducted a meta‐analysis of randomized trials comparing HPSD versus LPLD.Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 31, 2023 focusing on HPSD versus LPLD. The study endpoints were AF recurrence, procedural times and overall complications.Results: Five studies enrolling 424 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.1 years; 54.3% paroxysmal AF; mean LVEF 58.2%). Compared to LPLD, HPSD showed a significantly lower AF recurrence rate [16.3% vs. 30,1%; RR: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.38–0.79); p = 0.001] at a mean 10.9 months follow‐up. Moreover, HPSD led to a significant reduction in total procedural time [MD: −26.25 min (95%CI: −42.89 to −9.61); p = 0.002], PVI time [MD: −26.44 min (95%CI: −38.32 to −14.55); p < 0.0001], RF application time [MD: −8.69 min (95%CI: −11.37 to −6.01); p < 0.00001] and RF lesion number [MD: −7.60 (95%CI: −10.15 to −5.05); p < 0.00001]. No difference was found in either right [80.4% vs. 78.2%; RR: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81–1.32); p = 0.77] or left [92.3% vs. 90.2%; RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94–1.11); p = 0.58] first‐pass isolation and overall complications [6% vs. 3.7%; RR: 1.45 (95%CI: 0.53–3.99); p = 0.47] between groups.Conclusion: In our metanalysis of randomized trials, HPSD ablation appeared to be associated to a significantly improved freedom from AF and shorter procedures, without increasing the risk of complications.

Aims: In patients with prolonged atrioventricular (AV) conduction and pacemaker (PM) indication due to sinus node disease (SND) or intermittent AV-block who do not need continuous ventricular pacing (VP), it may be difficult to determine which strategy to adopt. Currently, the standard of care is to minimize unnecessary VP by specific VP avoidance (VPA) algorithms. The superiority of this strategy over standard DDD or DDD rate-responsive (DDD/DDDR) in improving clinical outcomes is controversial, probably owing to the prolongation of the atrialventricular conduction (PR interval) caused by the algorithms. Conduction system pacing (CSP) may offer the most physiological-VP approach, providing appropriate AV conduction and preventing pacing-induced dyssynchrony. Methods and results: PhysioVP-AF is a prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blind trial designed to determine whether atrial-synchronized conduction system pacing (DDD-CSP) is superior to standard DDD-VPA pacing in terms of 3-year reduction of persistent-AF occurrence. Cardiovascular hospitalization, quality-of-life, and safety will be evaluated. Patients with indication for permanent DDD pacing for SND or intermittent AV-block and prolonged AV conduction (PR interval > 180 ms) will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to DDD-VPA (VPA-algorithms ON, septal/apex position) or to DDD-CSP (His bundle or left bundle branch area pacing, AV-delay setting to control PR interval, VPA-algorithms OFF). Approximately 400 patients will be randomized in 24 months in 13 Italian centres. Conclusion: The PhysioVP-AF study will provide an essential contribution to patient management with prolonged AV conduction and PM indication for sinus nodal disease or paroxysmal 2nd-degree AV-block by determining whether CSP combined with a controlled PR interval is superior to standard management that minimizes unnecessary VP in terms of reducing clinical outcomes.