His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AIM: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Incremental Benefit of Stepwise Nonpulmonary Vein Trigger Provocation During Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The importance of nonpulmonary vein (PV) triggers for the initiation/recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is well established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the incremental benefit of provocative maneuvers for identifying non-PV triggers. METHODS: We included consecutive patients undergoing first-time AF ablation between 2020 and 2022. The provocation protocol included step 1, identification of spontaneous non-PV triggers after cardioversion of AF and/or during sinus rhythm; step 2, isoproterenol infusion (3, 6, 12, and 20-30 µg/min); and step 3, atrial burst pacing to induce AF followed by cardioversion during residual or low-dose isoproterenol infusion or induce focal atrial tachycardia. Non-PV triggers were defined as non-PV ectopic beats triggering AF or sustained focal atrial tachycardia. RESULTS: Of 1,372 patients included, 883 (64.4%) underwent the complete stepwise provocation protocol with isoproterenol infusion and burst pacing, 334 (24.3%) isoproterenol infusion only, 77 (5.6%) burst pacing only, and 78 (5.7%) no provocative maneuvers (only step 1). Overall, 161 non-PV triggers were found in 135 (9.8%) patients. Of these, 51 (31.7%) non-PV triggers occurred spontaneously, and the remaining 110 (68.3%) required provocative maneuvers for induction. Among those receiving the complete stepwise provocation protocol, there was a 2.2-fold increase in the number of patients with non-PV triggers after isoproterenol infusion, and the addition of burst pacing after isoproterenol infusion led to a total increase of 3.6-fold with the complete stepwise provocation protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of non-PV triggers require provocative maneuvers for induction. A stepwise provocation protocol consisting of isoproterenol infusion followed by burst pacing identifies a 3.6-fold higher number of patients with non-PV triggers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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: One 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 phrenic 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.

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.

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.

Predictors of nonpulmonary vein triggers for atrial fibrillation: A clinical risk score.

BACKGROUND: Targeting non-pulmonary vein triggers (NPVTs) after pulmonary vein isolation may reduce atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. Isoproterenol infusion and cardioversion of spontaneous or induced AF can provoke NPVTs but typically require vasopressor support and increased procedural time. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for the presence of NPVTs and create a risk score to identify higher-risk subgroups. METHODS: Using the AF ablation registry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we included consecutive patients who underwent AF ablation between January 2021 and December 2022. We excluded patients who did not receive NPVT provocation testing after failing to demonstrate spontaneous NPVTs. NPVTs were defined as non-pulmonary vein ectopic beats triggering AF or focal atrial tachycardia. We used risk factors associated with NPVTs with P <.1 in multivariable logistic regression model to create a risk score in a randomly split derivation set (80%) and tested its predictive accuracy in the validation set (20%). RESULTS: In 1530 AF ablations included, NPVTs were observed in 235 (15.4%). In the derivation set, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-2.03; P = .080), sinus node dysfunction (OR 1.67; 95% CI 0.98-2.87; P = .060), previous AF ablation (OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.70-3.65; P <.001), and left atrial scar (OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.94-4.36; P <.001) were risk factors associated with NPVTs. The risk score created from these risk factors (PRE2SSS2 score; [PRE]vious ablation: 2 points, female [S]ex: 1 point, [S]inus node dysfunction: 1 point, left atrial [S]car: 2 points) had good predictive accuracy in the validation cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.728; 95% CI 0.648-0.807). CONCLUSION: A risk score incorporating predictors for NPVTs may allow provocation of triggers to be performed in patients with greatest expected yield.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is excessive ventricular irregularity predictive of rehospitalization in patients with permanent AF and HFpEF?

AIMS: There are currently limited therapeutic approaches for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have developed permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to analyse the impact of ventricular irregularity on heart failure rehospitalization in patients with permanent AF and HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 24 h ambulatory Holter monitoring performed in our centre within a month after a first heart failure hospitalization were screened. Patients with HFpEF and permanent AF were included in the retrospective analysis. The following parameters of ventricular irregularity were calculated over the 24 h recording period: standard deviation of all RR intervals (SDNN), coefficient of variation of SDNN (CV-SDNN = SDNN/mean RR), root of the mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD), and percentage of consecutive RR intervals with difference over 50 ms (pNN50). The primary endpoint was rehospitalization for acute heart failure (HFrH). From 2010 to 2021, 51/216 screened patients were included. During a median follow-up of 3.13 years, 29/51 patients reached the primary endpoint. HFrH patients had higher SDNN (205 ± 65 vs. 154 ± 46 ms; P < 0.01), CV-SDNN (26 ± 8% vs. 19 ± 5%, P < 0.01), RMSSD (182 ± 47 vs. 138 ± 65 ms, P = 0.013), and pNN50 (76 ± 9 vs. 58 ± 26, P < 0.001) when compared with patients with no HFrH. In multivariate analysis, all those parameters remained significantly associated with HFrH. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we found some evidences for a deleterious impact of excessive ventricular irregularity on HFrH in AF patients with HFpEF. Those new findings could pave the way for new prognosis and therapeutic approaches in this patients' population.

RVOT premature ventricular contractions induce significant anatomical displacement during 3D mapping: A cause of mid-term ablation failure?

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is a first-line treatment for symptomatic right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). There is evidence of displacement of the ablation target site during PVCs relative to the location in sinus rhythm (SR). AIM: To analyse the extent of displacement induced by RVOT PVCs and its effect on the ablation sites and the mid-term efficacy of ablation. METHODS: In this multicentre French study, we retrospectively included 18 consecutive adults referred for ablation of RVOT PVCs using a three-dimensional (3D) mapping system. PVC activation maps were performed conventionally (initial map), then each PVC activation point was manually reannotated considering the 3D location on a previous SR beat (corrected map). The ablation-site locations on the initial or the corrected area, including the 10 best activation points, were analysed. Mid-term efficacy was evaluated. RESULTS: The direction of map shift during PVCs relative to the map in SR occurred along a vertical axis in 16 of 18 patients. The mean activation-point displacement for each of the 18 mapped chambers was 5.6±2.2mm. Mid-term recurrence of RVOT PVCs occurred in 5 (28%) patients. In all patients with recurrences, no significant ablation lesion was located on the corrected (true) site of origin. CONCLUSIONS: RVOT PVCs induce a vertical anatomical shift that can mislead physicians about the true location of the arrhythmia's site of origin. Our study highlights the association between mid-term PVC recurrence and the absence of spatial overlap between ablation points and the corrected site of origin.