Hello, I'm Luigi Di Biase from the Montefiore Health System at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Lots of clinical trial here at the EHRA 2025 and a lot of late-breaking clinical trials.

But what's happened in the AFib late-breaking trials? And a lot of technology presented. And what will change our practice? Well, you know several trials were presented.

High Power Short Duration Ablation Vs Cryoablation

We start with a trial looking at high-power, short-duration without contact force compared to cryoablation, and there was proven non-inferiority was not proven and a trend towards cryoablation a little better than high-power, short-duration.

Cryoablation Vs PFA

Following this one, we had a trial looking at cryoablation versus PFA. And the PFA almost superior, non-inferior to cryo but a trend towards superiority, and probably considering it's a new technology, the message is that the pentaspline catheter was superior to cryo and so we're moving towards this direction. So cryo better than high-power, short-duration but PFA better than cryo.

VOLT CE Mark

Following this, another balloon-based trial: the Volt six-month follow-up from Abbott proved to be a great technology to map, have contact force and ablate. And this goes also into the direction of a balloon-based PFA or a single-shot PFA looks to be a very good technique to perform PVI.

Dual Energy STSF Point-by-point

And finally, dual energy STSF point-by-point. Good outcome but some problem with some complications with the DRF and some lack of catheter stability.

So what's the message out there is that we have a lot of opportunity here with PFA. Looks like PFA is replacing RF and cryo, looks like a balloon-based or a single-shot solution looks like to be more feasible to achieving PVI. On the other hand, we still need some point-by-point need with RF, probably, but the future is PFA. Thank you very much.