Right ventriculoarterial coupling surrogates and long-term survival in LVAD recipients: Results of the ASSIST-ICD multicentric registry.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of outcomes remains an unmet need in LVAD candidates. Development of right heart failure portends an excess in mortality but imaging parameters of right ventricular systolic function have failed to demonstrate a prognostic role. By integrating pulmonary pressure, right ventriculoarterial coupling could fill this gap. METHODS: The ASSIST-ICD registry was used to test right ventriculoarterial coupling surrogate parameters at implantation for the prediction of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The ratio of the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion over the estimated systolic pulmonary pressure (TAPSE/sPAP) was not associated with long-term survival in univariate analysis (p = 0.89), neither was the pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) (p = 0.13). Conversely, the ratio of the right atrial pressure over the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (RAP/PCWP) was associated with all-cause mortality (p <0.01). After taking tricuspid regurgitation severity, LVAD indication, LVAD model, age, blood urea nitrogen, and pulmonary vascular resistance into account, RAP/PCWP remained associated with survival (HR 1.35 [1.10 - 1.65], p <0.01). CONCLUSION: Among pre-implant RVAC surrogates, only RAP/PCWP was associated with long-term all-cause mortality in LVAD recipients. This association was independent of established risk factors.

Long-Term Freedom From Ventricular Arrhythmias in ARVC With Endocardial Only Ablation: Predictors of Success.

BACKGROUND: Although the epicardial predominance of substrate abnormalities has been well demonstrated in early stages of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), endocardial (ENDO) ablation may suffice to eliminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) in some patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes of ENDO-only ablation in ARVC patients and factors that predict VT-free survival. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with Task Force Criteria diagnosis of ARVC undergoing a first ENDO-only VT ablation between 1998 and 2020. Ablation was predominantly guided by activation/entrainment mapping for mappable VTs and pace mapping/targeting abnormal electrograms for unmappable VTs. The primary endpoint was freedom from any recurrent sustained VT after the last ENDO-only ablation. RESULTS: Seventy-four ARVC patients underwent ENDO-only VT ablation. VT noninducibility was achieved in 49 (66%) patients. During median follow-up of 6.6 years (Q1-Q3: 3.4-11.2 years), 40 (54.1%) patients remained free from any VT recurrence with rare VT ≤2 episodes in additional 12.2%. Among patients with noninducibility, VT-free survival was 75.5% during long-term follow-up. In multivariable analysis, >45 y of age at diagnosis (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98) and VT noninducibility (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80) were predictors of VT-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term VT-free survival can be achieved in over half of ARVC patients following ENDO-only VT ablation, increasing to over 75% if VT noninducibility is achieved. Our results support consideration of a stepwise ENDO-only approach before proceeding to epicardial ablation if VT noninducibility can be achieved particularly in older patients.

Superior vena cava isolation using a pentaspline pulsed-field ablation catheter: feasibility and safety in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation.

AIMS: Superior vena cava (SVC) isolation during atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is limited by the risk of collateral damage to the sinus node and/or the phrenic nerve. Due to its tissue-specificity, we hypothesized the feasibility and safety of pulsed-field ablation (PFA)-based SVC isolation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A hundred and five consecutive patients undergoing PFA-based AF catheter ablation were prospectively included. After pulmonary vein isolation (± posterior wall isolation and electrical cardioversion), SVC isolation was performed using a standardized workflow. Acute SVC isolation was achieved in 105/105 (100%) patients after 6 ± 1 applications. Transient phrenic nerve stunning occurred in 67/105 (64%) patients but without phenic nerve palsy at the end of the procedure and at hospital discharge. Transient high degree sinus node dysfunction occurred in 5/105 (4.7%) patients, with no recurrence at the end of the procedure and until discharge. At the 3-month follow-up visit, no complication occurred. CONCLUSION: SVC isolation using a pentaspline PFA catheter is feasible and safe.

The Safety and Efficacy of Epicardial Carbon Dioxide Insufflation Compared With Conventional Epicardial Access.

BACKGROUND: Epicardial (Epi) access is commonly required during ventricular tachycardia ablation. Conventional Epi (ConvEpi) access targets a "dry" pericardial space presenting technical challenges and risk of complications. Recently, intentional puncture of coronary venous branches with Epi carbon dioxide insufflation (EpiCO2) has been described as a technique to improve Epi access. The safety of this technique relative to conventional methods remains unproven. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the feasibility and safety of EpiCO2 to ConvEpi access. METHODS: All patients at a high-volume center undergoing Epi access between January 2021 and December 2023 were included and grouped according to ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach. Access technique was according to the discretion of the operator. RESULTS: Epi access was attempted in 153 cases by 17 different operators (80 ConvEpi vs 73 EpiCO2). There was no difference in success rate whether the ConvEpi or EpiCO2 approach was used (76 [95%] cases vs 67 [91.8%] cases; P = 0.4). Total Epi access time was shorter in the ConvEpi group compared with the EpiCO2 group (16.3 ± 11.6 minutes vs 26.9 ± 12.7 minutes; P < 0.001), though the total procedure duration was similar. Major Epi access-related complications occurred in only the ConvEpi group (6 [7.5%] ConvEpi vs 0 [0%] EpiCo2; P = 0.02). Bleeding ≥80 mL was more frequently observed following ConvEpi access (14 [17.5%] cases vs 4 [5.5%] cases; P = 0.02). After adjusting for age, repeat Epi access, and antithrombotic therapy, EpiCO2 was associated with a reduction in bleeding ≥80 mL (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08-0.89; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: EpiCO2 access is associated with lower rates of major complication and bleeding when compared with ConvEpi access.

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the outcomes of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in HF. METHODS: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a multicenter, patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal AF or persistent AF (PerAF). In this substudy, patients were stratified as no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (left ventricular EF of ≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly reduced EF (HFmr/rEF) (left ventricular EF of <50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30 seconds and major adverse events, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n = 1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n = 87) were HFpEF, and 8.6% (n = 120) were HFmr/rEF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (P < 0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (P = >0.99). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF patients than in those with HFpEF or HFmr/rEF (79.9%, 71.3%, and 67.5%, respectively; P < 0.001) but similar between patients with HFmr/rEF and HFpEF (P = 0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HFpEF vs HFmr/rEF for those with paroxysmal AF (82.8%, 82.4%, and 71.7%, respectively; P = 0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, respectively; P = 0.14). Major adverse event rates were similar between the no-HF, HFpEF, and HFmr/rEF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes.

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: A MANIFEST-PF Sub-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) in HF. METHODS: MANIFEST-PF is a multicenter patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal (PAF) or persistent AF (PerAF). In this sub-study, patients were stratified as: no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HFPEF; LVEF≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly-reduced EF (HFMR/REF; LVEF<50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30s and major adverse events (MAEs), respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n=1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n=87) were HFPEF, and 8.6% (n=120) were HFMR/REF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (p<0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (p=1.00). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF than with HFPEF or HFMR/REF (79.9%, 71.3%, 67.5%, p<0.001), but similar between HFMR/REF and HFPEF (p=0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HFPEF vs HFMR/REF for those with PAF (82.8%/82.4%/71.7%, p=0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, p=0.14.MAE rates were similar between the no-HF, HFPEF and HFMR/REF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes.

Personalized Screening Before Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation: Usefulness and Outcomes in Clinical Practice - The S-ICD Screening SIS Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic (ECG) screening prior to S-ICD implantation is unsuccessful in around 10% of cases. A personalized screening method, by slightly moving the electrodes, to obtain a better R/T ratio has been described to overcome traditional screening failure. OBJECTIVE: To assess to what extent a personalized screening method improves eligibility for S-ICD implantation and evaluate the inappropriate shock rate after such screening success. METHODS: All consecutive patients eligible for an S-ICD implantation were prospectively recruited across 20 French centers between December 2019 to January 2022 (NCT04101253). In case of traditional screening failure, patients received a second personalized screening. If at least one vector was positive, the personalized screening was considered as successful, and the patient was eligible for implantation. RESULTS: 474 patients were included in the study (mean age 50.4 ±14.1 years; 77.4% men). Traditional screening was successful in 456 (96.2%) cases. This figure rose to 98.3% (n=466; P=.002) when personalized screening was performed. All patients implanted after successful personalized screening had correct signal detection on initial device interrogation. Nevertheless, after one year follow-up, 3 (43%) of the 7 patients implanted with personalized experienced inappropriate shock (vs 18 (4.2%) out of the 427 patients with traditional screening and S-ICD implantation P=.003). CONCLUSION: Traditional S-ICD screening was successful in our study in a very high proportion of patients. Considering the small improvement in success of screening and a higher rate of inappropriate shock, a strategy of personalized screening cannot be routinely recommended.

Prospective 1-year results of atrial fibrillation ablation using the pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter: The initial French experience.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation has recently emerged as an interesting non-thermal energy for atrial fibrillation ablation. At a time of rapid spread of this technology, there is still a lack of prospective real-life data. AIM: To describe multicentre prospective safety and 1-year efficacy data in three of the first French centres to use pulsed field ablation. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing a first pulsed field ablation were included prospectively. The primary outcome was freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia. The safety endpoint was a composite of major adverse events. Univariate and multivariable analyses, including patient and procedural characteristics, were performed to identify factors predictive of recurrence. RESULTS: Between May 2021 and June 2022, 311 patients were included (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 53%, persistent atrial fibrillation in 35% and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation in 11%). Additional non-pulmonary vein pulsed field ablation applications were performed in 104/311 patients. One-year freedom from arrhythmia recurrence was 77.6% in the overall population and was significantly higher in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (88.4%) compared with patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (69.7%; P<0.001) and those with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (49.0%; P<0.001). The major complication rate was 2.6% (tamponade in four patients, stroke in two patients and coronary spasm in one patient). Besides the usual predictors of recurrences (left atrium size, CHA2DS2-VASc score, type of atrial fibrillation), the presence of atrial fibrillation at procedure start was independently associated with arrhythmia recurrence (hazard ratio: 2.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-3.77). CONCLUSION: In this prospective multicentre real-world study, pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation ablation seems to be associated with a good safety profile and rather favourable acute and 1-year success rates.

Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter Versus Cryoballoon for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Results From a Prospective Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Cryoballoon ablation is currently the gold standard technique for single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as an interesting nonthermal alternative energy for PVI. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of PVI using the pentaspline PFA catheter in comparison to cryoballoon ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2021 and December 2022, we included all consecutive patients of our center in whom a first PVI-only procedure was performed using PFA or cryoballoon. The choice of the energy was based on patients' preference between general anesthesia (PFA) and local anesthesia (cryoballoon). The primary end point was freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 3-month blanking period. A total of 301 patients (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 220 patients) underwent a first PVI procedure performed using PFA (n=151) or cryoballoon (n=150). Complete short-term PVI was obtained in 144 of 150 patients (96%) in the cryoballoon group and in all patients of the PFA group (P=0.01). Procedure duration was significantly longer in the cryoballoon group. Transient and persistent phrenic nerve injuries were observed in the cryoballoon group only (13/150 and 2/150, respectively). One-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in the PFA group compared with the cryoballoon group (87.9% versus 77.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.96]; P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, comparative, real-life study suggested that PFA could overcome safety limitations of cryoballoon with optimal effectiveness. Randomized controlled studies are required to further investigate the potential superiority of PFA over cryoballoon.

Impact of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Ablation During Pulsed-Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is insufficient to treat many patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). Adjunctive left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) ablation with thermal technologies has revealed lack of efficacy, perhaps limited by the difficulty in achieving lesion durability amid concerns of esophageal injury. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI + LAPW ablation vs PVI in patients with PersAF using pulsed-field ablation (PFA). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) registry, we studied consecutive PersAF patients undergoing post-approval treatment with a pentaspline PFA catheter. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from any atrial arrhythmia of ≥30 seconds. Safety outcomes included the composite of acute and chronic major adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 547 patients with PersAF who underwent PFA, 131 (24%) received adjunctive LAPW ablation. Compared to PVI-alone, patients receiving adjunctive LAPW ablation were younger (65 vs 67 years of age, P = 0.08), had a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score (2.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.6 ± 1.6, P = 0.08), and were more likely to receive electroanatomical mapping (48.1% vs 39.0%, P = 0.07) and intracardiac echocardiography imaging (46.1% vs 17.1%, P < 0.001). The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmias was not statistically different between groups in the full (PVI + LAPW: 66.4%; 95% CI: 57.6%-74.4% vs PVI: 73.1%; 95% CI: 68.5%-77.2%; P = 0.68) and propensity-matched cohorts (PVI + LAPW: 71.7% vs PVI: 68.5%; P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in major adverse events between the groups (2.2% vs 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PersAF undergoing PFA, as compared to PVI-alone, adjunctive LAPW ablation did not improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months.

Clinical Outcomes by Sex After Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: Previous studies evaluating the association of patient sex with clinical outcomes using conventional thermal ablative modalities for atrial fibrillation (AF) such as radiofrequency or cryoablation are controversial due to mixed results. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel AF ablation energy modality that has demonstrated preferential myocardial tissue ablation with a unique safety profile. Objective: To compare sex differences in patients undergoing PFA for AF in the Multinational Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Postapproval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation (MANIFEST-PF) registry. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of MANIFEST-PF registry data, which included consecutive patients undergoing postregulatory approval treatment with PFA to treat AF between March 2021 and May 2022 with a median follow-up of 1 year. MANIFEST-PF is a multinational, retrospectively analyzed, prospectively enrolled patient-level registry including 24 European centers. The study included all consecutive registry patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent first-ever PFA for paroxysmal or persistent AF. Exposure: PFA was performed on patients with AF. All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation and additional ablation, which was performed at the discretion of the operator. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from clinically documented atrial arrhythmia for 30 seconds or longer after a 3-month blanking period. The primary safety outcome was the composite of acute (<7 days postprocedure) and chronic (>7 days) major adverse events (MAEs). Results: Of 1568 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.5] years; 1015 male [64.7%]) with AF who underwent PFA, female patients, as compared with male patients, were older (mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years vs 62 [12] years; P < .001), had more paroxysmal AF (70.2% [388 of 553] vs 62.4% [633 of 1015]; P = .002) but had fewer comorbidities such as coronary disease (9% [38 of 553] vs 15.9% [129 of 1015]; P < .001), heart failure (10.5% [58 of 553] vs 16.6% [168 of 1015]; P = .001), and sleep apnea (4.7% [18 of 553] vs 11.7% [84 of 1015]; P < .001). Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in 99.8% of female (552 of 553) and 98.9% of male (1004 of 1015; P = .90) patients. Additional ablation was performed in 22.4% of female (124 of 553) and 23.1% of male (235 of 1015; P = .79) patients. The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmia was similar in male and female patients (79.0%; 95% CI, 76.3%-81.5% vs 76.3%; 95% CI, 72.5%-79.8%; P = .28). There was also no significant difference in acute major AEs between groups (male, 1.5% [16 of 1015] vs female, 2.5% [14 of 553]; P = .19). Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that after PFA for AF, there were no significant sex differences in clinical effectiveness or safety events.

ATE Score Diagnostic Accuracy for Predicting the Absence of Intra-Atrial Thrombi Before AF Ablation.

BACKGROUND: In a preliminary study in patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), the atrial thrombus exclusion (ATE) score (stroke, hypertension, heart failure, and D-dimers >270 ng/mL) was developed to rule out the diagnosis of intra-atrial thrombus, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, and to avoid performing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to prospectively confirm the NPV of the ATE score in an independent population. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or left atrial tachycardia (LAT) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter study. D-dimer levels were measured within 48 hours before ablation. An ATE score of 0 was considered predictive of no thrombus. TEE was routinely performed at the beginning or just before the ablation procedure. The primary endpoint was the presence of atrial thrombus diagnosed by TEE. RESULTS: The analysis included 3,072 patients (53.3% paroxysmal AF, 36.7% persistent AF, and 10% LAT). A thrombus was detected in 29 patients (0.94%; 95% CI: 0.63%-1.35%), all on appropriate anticoagulant therapy. An ATE score of 0 was observed in 818 patients (26.6%), and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and NPV were 93.1%, 26.8%, 1.2%, and 99.8%, respectively. Follow-up of the 2 false negative patients revealed the persistence of chronic organized thrombi. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or LAT, the ATE score identifies a population at very low risk for atrial thrombus. In consultation with the patient, the cardiologist may consider not performing a preoperative TEE in case of an ATE score of 0.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Very few data have been published on the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes associated with S-ICDs in patients with CHD. METHODS: This nationwide French cohort including all patients with an S-ICD was initiated in 2020 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. Characteristics at implantation and outcomes were analyzed in patients with CHD. RESULTS: From October 12, 2012, to December 31, 2019, among 4,924 patients receiving an S-ICD implant in 150 centers, 101 (2.1%) had CHD. Tetralogy of Fallot, univentricular heart, and dextro-transposition of the great arteries represented almost one-half of the population. Patients with CHD were significantly younger (age 37.1 ± 15.4 years vs 50.1 ± 14.9 years; P < 0.001), more frequently female (37.6% vs 23.0%; P < 0.001), more likely to receive an S-ICD for secondary prevention (72.3% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have severe systolic dysfunction of the systemic ventricle (28.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years, 16 (15.8%) patients with CHD received at least 1 appropriate shock, with all shocks successfully terminating the ventricular arrhythmia. The crude risk of appropriate S-ICD shock was twice as high in patients with CHD compared with non-CHD patients (annual incidences of 9.0% vs 4.4%; HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4); however, this association was no longer significant after propensity matching (especially considering S-ICD indication, P = 0.12). The burden of all complications (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.1; P = 0.4) and inappropriate shocks (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.9) was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, patients with CHD represented 2% of all S-ICD implantations. Our findings emphasize the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD in this particularly high-risk population. (S-ICD French Cohort Study [HONEST]; NCT05302115).

Impact of Preprocedural Computed Tomography on Left Atrial Appendage Closure Success: A Swiss-Apero Trial Subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit related to the use of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CCTA) on top of periprocedural echocardiography to plan percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on LAAC procedural success. METHODS: In the investigator-initiated SWISS-APERO (Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure) trial, patients undergoing echocardiography-guided LAAC were randomly assigned to receive the Amulet (Abbott) or Watchman 2.5/FLX (Boston Scientific) device across 8 European centers. According to the study protocol ongoing at the time of the procedure, the first operators had (CCTA unblinded group) or did not have (CCTA blinded group) access to preprocedural CCTA images. In this post hoc analysis, we compared blinded vs unblinded procedures in terms of procedural success defined as complete left atrial appendage occlusion as evaluated at the end of LAAC (short-term) or at the 45-day follow-up (long-term) without procedural-related complications. RESULTS: Among 219 LAACs preceded by CCTA, 92 (42.1%) and 127 (57.9%) were assigned to the CCTA unblinded and blinded group, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA remained associated with a higher rate of short-term procedural success (93.5% vs 81.1%; P = 0.009; adjusted OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.05-7.29; P = 0.040) and long-term procedural success (83.7% vs 72.4%; P = 0.050; adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.03-4.35; P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective multicenter cohort of clinically indicated echocardiography-guided LAACs, unblinding of the first operators to preprocedural CCTA images was independently associated with a higher rate of both short- and long-term procedural success. Further studies are needed to better evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on clinical outcomes.

Heart transplantation as a rescue strategy for patients with refractory electrical storm.

AIMS: Heart transplantation (HT) can be proposed as a therapeutic strategy for patients with severe refractory electrical storm (ES). Data in the literature are scarce and based on case reports. We aimed at determining the characteristics and survival of patients transplanted for refractory ES. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients registered on HT waiting list during the following days after ES and eventually transplanted, from 2010 to 2021, were retrospectively included in 11 French centres. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Forty-five patients were included [82% men; 55.0 (47.8-59.3) years old; 42.2% and 26.7% non-ischaemic dilated or ischaemic cardiomyopathies, respectively]. Among them, 42 (93.3%) received amiodarone, 29 received (64.4%) beta blockers, 19 (42.2%) required deep sedation, 22 had (48.9%) mechanical circulatory support, and 9 (20.0%) had radiofrequency catheter ablation. Twenty-two patients (62%) were in cardiogenic shock. Inscription on wait list and transplantation occurred 3.0 (1.0-5.0) days and 9.0 (4.0-14.0) days after ES onset, respectively. After transplantation, 20 patients (44.4%) needed immediate haemodynamic support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In-hospital mortality rate was 28.9%. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were serum creatinine/urea levels, need for immediate post-operative ECMO support, post-operative complications, and surgical re-interventions. One-year survival was 68.9%. CONCLUSION: Electrical storm is a rare indication of HT but may be lifesaving in those patients presenting intractable arrhythmias despite usual care. Most patients can be safely discharged from hospital, although post-operative mortality remains substantial in this context of emergency transplantation. Larger studies are warranted to precisely determine those patients at higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation to Treat Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From the MANIFEST-PF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation is a novel nonthermal cardiac ablation modality using ultra-rapid electrical pulses to cause cell death by a mechanism of irreversible electroporation. Unlike the traditional ablation energy sources, pulsed field ablation has demonstrated significant preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation, and thus avoids certain thermally mediated complications. However, its safety and effectiveness remain unknown in usual clinical care. METHODS: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a retrospective, multinational, patient-level registry wherein patients at each center were prospectively included in their respective center registries. The registry included all patients undergoing postapproval treatment with a multielectrode 5-spline pulsed field ablation catheter to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) between March 1, 2021, and May 30, 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from clinical documented atrial arrhythmia (AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia) of ≥30 seconds on the basis of electrocardiographic data after a 3-month blanking period (on or off antiarrhythmic drugs). Safety outcomes included the composite of acute (<7 days postprocedure) and latent (>7 days) major adverse events. RESULTS: At 24 European centers (77 operators) pulsed field ablation was performed in 1568 patients with AF: age 64.5±11.5 years, female 35%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 65%/32%, CHA2DS2-VASc 2.2±1.6, median left ventricular ejection fraction 60%, and left atrial diameter 42 mm. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 99.2% of patients. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 367 (289-421) days, the 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.0%-80.0%); clinical effectiveness was more common in patients with paroxysmal AF versus persistent AF (81.6% versus 71.5%; P=0.001). Acute major adverse events occurred in 1.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational registry of the postapproval clinical use of pulsed field technology to treat AF, catheter ablation using pulsed field energy was clinically effective in 78% of patients with AF.

Conduction system pacing in France in 2022: A snapshot survey from the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is an emerging and promising approach for physiological ventricular pacing. While data from randomized controlled trials are scarce, use of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has increased in France. AIM: To perform a national snapshot survey for cardiac electrophysiologists to evaluate adoption of CSP in France. METHODS: An online survey, distributed to every senior cardiac electrophysiologist in France, was conducted in November 2022. RESULTS: A total of 120 electrophysiologists completed the survey. Eighty-three (69%) respondents reported experience in undertaking CSP procedures and 27 (23%) were planning to start performing CSP in the coming 2 years. The implantation techniques and criteria used for successful implantation differed significantly among operators. The most frequent indications for HBP and LBBAP were high-degree atrioventricular block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% (24 and 82%, respectively) or with LVEF ≥ 40% (27 and 74%, respectively), and after failure of a coronary sinus left ventricular lead (27 and 71%, respectively). The limitations respondents most frequently perceived when performing HBP were bad sensing/pacing parameters (45%), increased procedure duration (41%) and risk of lead dislodgement (30%). The most frequently perceived limitations to performing LBBAP were absence of guidelines or consensus (31%), lack of medical training (23%) and increased procedure duration (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Our national survey-based study supports wide adoption of CSP in France. CSP is currently used as a second-line approach for both antibradycardia and resynchronization indications, with important variations regarding implantation techniques and criteria for measuring success.