Platform-Specific Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A MAUDE Analysis

Background: Three pulsed-field ablation (PFA) systems are FDA-approved for atrial fibrillation (AF), yet whether their safety profiles differ from each other and from radiofrequency (RF) ablation has not been systematically characterized using real-world adverse event data. We compared platform-specific complication profiles across three FDA-approved PFA systems and contemporary RF catheters in MAUDE. Methods: We analyzed 2,262 manually adjudicated MAUDE adverse event reports (760 PFA, 1,502 RF) through July 2025. Neurologic events underwent independent adjudication into five tiers by three auditors. Disproportionality was assessed using Reporting Odds Ratios (ROR) with Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction. Results: Pooled PFA had significantly lower BH-adjusted ROR for tamponade (0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.67) and esophageal injury (0.09, 0.01-0.66), consistent with a tissue-selective reporting profile across platforms. Platform-level analysis, however, revealed substantial heterogeneity: the stroke signal was driven by Varipulse (ROR 16.41, 8.61-31.28) and was not observed with Farapulse (ROR 1.26, NS). Pooled PFA had higher ROR for imaging-confirmed stroke (3.84, 2.27-6.49) and arrhythmia (2.57, 1.91-3.45). Coronary vasospasm (24 vs. 0 events) and hemolysis (15 vs. 1 events) were PFA-specific. Composite serious adverse events were similar. In a pre-specified extension period analysis (August-December 2025), the pooled PFA stroke signal attenuated to non-significance (ROR 1.60, 0.89-2.85), consistent with notoriety bias following the FDA Safety Communication. Conclusions: PFA adverse-event reporting shows substantial platform heterogeneity across approved systems. Varipulse was associated with a disproportionate neurologic reporting signal, while all PFA platforms show tissue-selective reporting patterns relative to RF. These findings support platform-aware clinical decision-making and post-market surveillance.