Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing using a Stylet-Driven, Retractable-Helix Lead: Short Term Results from a Prospective, Multicenter IDE Trial (The BIO-CONDUCT Study).

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has swiftly emerged as a safe and effective alternative to right ventricular (RV) pacing. Limited data exists on the use of retractable-helix, stylet-driven leads (SDL) for LBBAP. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to prospectively evaluate performance and safety of the Solia S stylet-driven pacing lead in a rigorously controlled multi-center trial to support U.S. market application. METHODS: A multi-center, prospective, non-randomized trial enrolled patients with standard pacing indications. Implant procedural and lead data, including threshold, sensing, impedance, and capture type were collected through 3-months. Primary endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious complications through 3-months and LBBAP implant success according to pre-specified criteria. A blinded Clinical Events Committee (CEC) adjudicated all potential endpoint complications. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included from 14 US sites. LBBAP implants were successful in 95.7% (178/186; 95% CI: 91.7%, 98.1%; p< 0.0001 for comparison to performance goal of 88%). Through the 3-month follow-up, 3 patients experienced a serious LBBAP complication, all lead dislodgements, resulting in a LBBAP lead-related complication-free rate of 98.3%. A total of 13 patients (7.8%) experienced any system-related or procedure-related complication. Mean threshold was 0.89V at 0.4ms, sensing was 10.8mV, and impedance was 608 ohms. CONCLUSION: The short-term results from this prospective trial demonstrate both high implant success and freedom from LBBAP lead-related complications utilizing this stylet driven retractable helix lead. This trial supports the safety, use, and effectiveness of SDL for performing contemporary physiologic pacing.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). CONCLUSION: The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Validation of a machine learning algorithm to identify pulmonary vein isolation during ablation procedures for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: results of the PVISION study.

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of ablation for atrial fibrillation. Confirmation of PVI can be challenging due to the presence of far-field electrograms (EGMs) and sometimes requires additional pacing manoeuvres or mapping. This prospective multicentre study assessed the agreement between a previously trained automated algorithm designed to determine vein isolation status with expert opinion in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients scheduled for PVI were recruited at four centres. The ECGenius electrophysiology (EP) recording system (CathVision ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark) was connected in parallel with the existing system in the laboratory. Electrograms from a circular mapping catheter were annotated during sinus rhythm at baseline pre-ablation, time of isolation, and post-ablation. The ground truth for isolation status was based on operator opinion. The algorithm was applied to the collected PV signals off-line and compared with expert opinion. The primary endpoint was a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 80%. Overall, 498 EGMs (248 at baseline and 250 at PVI) with 5473 individual PV beats from 89 patients (32 females, 62 ± 12 years) were analysed. The algorithm performance reached an area under the curve (AUC) of 92% and met the primary study endpoint with a sensitivity and specificity of 86 and 87%, respectively (P = 0.005; P = 0.004). The algorithm had an accuracy rate of 87% in classifying the time of isolation. CONCLUSION: This study validated an automated algorithm using machine learning to assess the isolation status of pulmonary veins in patients undergoing PVI with different ablation modalities. The algorithm reached an AUC of 92%, with both sensitivity and specificity exceeding the primary study endpoints.

Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: Results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in vitro bench testing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) requires deep septal lead deployment for left-sided conduction stimulation. Advancing leads toward deep septal positions might add mechanical stress on these leads. Concerns about lead performance and reliability remain an unanswered question. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze lead performance and integrity of stylet-driven pacing leads (SDLs) for LBBAP. METHODS: This study assessed lead fracture rates of SDL in a large single-center cohort of adult LBBAP patients. Fluoroscopic analysis of lead bending angulations at the septal insertion point and in vitro bench testing of lead preconditioning were performed to simulate clinical use conditions. Lead performance was compared between LBBAP and conventional right ventricular apical pacing (RVp) sites. RESULTS: The study included 325 LBBAP patients (66% male; age 71±15 years). During median follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients (0.6%) experienced conductor fracture between tip housing and ring electrode, whereas no such fractures occurred with RVp patients (n = 149; P = .22). X-ray analysis revealed that high lead bending angulations occurred in 1.3% of the patients. Accelerated bench testing of excessive preconditioned leads showcased a higher probability of early conductor fracture compared to standard preconditioned leads. CONCLUSION: The incidence of early conductor failure in LBBAP seems higher than with conventional RVp sites. The most vulnerable lead part seems to be the interelectrode space between the tip housing and ring electrode. Excessive angulation and preconditioning might contribute to early fatigue fracture.

Prediction of certainty in artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography.

BACKGROUND: The 12­lead ECG provides an excellent substrate for artificial intelligence (AI) enabled prediction of various cardiovascular diseases. However, a measure of prediction certainty is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess a novel approach for estimating certainty of AI-ECG predictions. METHODS: Two convolutional neural networks (CNN) were developed to predict patient age and sex. Model 1 applied a 5 s sliding time-window, allowing multiple CNN predictions. The consistency of the output values, expressed as interquartile range (IQR), was used to estimate prediction certainty. Model 2 was trained on the full 10s ECG signal, resulting in a single CNN point prediction value. Performance was evaluated on an internal test set and externally validated on the PTB-XL dataset. RESULTS: Both CNNs were trained on 269,979 standard 12­lead ECGs (82,477 patients). Model 1 showed higher accuracy for both age and sex prediction (mean absolute error, MAE 6.9 ± 6.3 years vs. 7.7 ± 6.3 years and AUC 0.946 vs. 0.916, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). The IQR of multiple CNN output values allowed to differentiate between high and low accuracy of ECG based predictions (P < 0.001 for both). Among 10% of patients with narrowest IQR, sex prediction accuracy increased from 65.4% to 99.2%, and MAE of age prediction decreased from 9.7 to 4.1 years compared to the 10% with widest IQR. Accuracy and estimation of prediction certainty of model 1 remained true in the external validation dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Sliding window-based approach improves ECG based prediction of age and sex and may aid in addressing the challenge of prediction certainty estimation.

Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience.

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing. Objective: The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S). Methods: The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation. Results: Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004). Conclusion: The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing in patients with septal hypertrophy.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to provide physiological ventricular activation during pacing. Left ventricular septal hypertrophy (LVSH) might be challenging for LBBAP due to the thickness of the interventricular septum and potential presence of septal scar. This study assesses the feasibility, safety, and outcome of LBBAP in patients with LVSH using primarily stylet-driven leads (SDL). METHODS: Adult patients with LVSH who underwent LBBAP between March 2019 and November 2022 were enrolled. Baseline patient characteristics, procedural data and postprocedural results were collected. The feasibility of LBBAP in LVSH patients was compared to a cohort of LBBAP patients with normal septal wall thickness (NST). RESULTS: Seventeen LVSH and 133 NST patients underwent LBBAP with successful implantation achieved in 15 LVSH patients (88%). Mean implant depth was 17.2 ± 1.9 mm, with 53% proven left bundle branch (LBB) capture. Paced QRS duration (146 ± 14 ms) and V6 R-wave peak time (V6 RWPT; 79 ± 20 ms) were comparable between patients with and without septal hypertrophy, although patients with NST had higher rates of proven LBB capture (71% vs. 53%). In LVSH pacing thresholds (0.6 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms) and R-wave amplitude (13.9 ± 5.6 mV) were favorable and remained stable at follow-up. At 12 months, 87% of patients had stable or improved left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that LBBAP in patients with LVSH is safe and feasible and no lead-related complications were observed despite a mean implant depth exceeding 15 mm. LBBAP using SDL results in favorable pacing and electrocardiographic characteristics in LVSH patients, comparable to patients with NST.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE) such as lead aprons minimises radiation exposure of operators using X-ray systems. However, PRPE might be prone to cracks in the attenuating layer resulting in inadequate radiation protection. This study aims to investigate the prevalence, qualification and quantification of PRPE integrity during a longitudinal follow-up study. METHODS: All PRPE of a large, general hospital was evaluated yearly in the period 2018-2021. The equipment was inspected on a tele-operated X-ray table, and tears were qualified and quantified using an X-ray opaque ruler. Rejection criteria of Lambert & McKeon, with an extra rejection criterion of 15 mm2 for individual tears, were applied to accept or reject further use of the PRPE. RESULTS: Over the 4-year follow-up period, a total of 1011 pieces of PRPE were evaluated. In total, 47.3% of the PRPE showed tears of which 31% exceeded the mentioned rejection criteria. Remarkably, of the 287 newly registered pieces of PRPE, 6.0% showed tears in the first year of use of which 88.2% needed to be rejected. Also, 48% of the repaired PRPE was rejected again in the consecutive year. CONCLUSIONS: PRPE is prone to cracks. Up to 50% of PRPE showed tears and cracks resulting in 31% rejections. Newly purchased PRPE is not guaranteed to remain free of cracks and tears in the first year of use. Repair does not guarantee a long-term solution for prolonging the lifespan. Regular X-ray-based integrity analysis of PRPE is needed to ensure adequate radioprotection for operators using X-ray systems.

Clinical and Experimental Evidence for a Strain-Based Classification of Left Bundle Branch Block-Induced Cardiac Remodeling.

BACKGROUND: Septal strain patterns measured by echocardiography reflect the severity of left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. We investigated whether these LBBB strain stages predicted the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in an observational study and developed a sheep model of LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy. METHODS: The clinical study enrolled cardiac resynchronization therapy patients who underwent echocardiographic examination with speckle-tracking strain analysis before cardiac resynchronization therapy implant. In an experimental sheep model with pacing-induced dyssynchrony, LV remodeling and strain were assessed at baseline, at 8 and 16 weeks. Septal strain curves were classified into 5 patterns (LBBB-0 to LBBB-4). RESULTS: The clinical study involved 250 patients (age 65 [58; 72] years; 79% men; 89% LBBB) with a median LV ejection fraction of 25 [21; 30]%. Across the stages, cardiac resynchronization therapy resulted in a gradual volumetric response, ranging from no response in LBBB-0 patients (ΔLV end-systolic volume 0 [-12; 15]%) to super-response in LBBB-4 patients (ΔLV end-systolic volume -44 [-64; -18]%) (P<0.001). LBBB-0 patients had a less favorable long-term outcome compared with those in stage LBBB≥1 (log-rank P=0.003). In 13 sheep, acute right ventricular pacing resulted in LBBB-1 (23%) and LBBB-2 (77%) patterns. Over the course of 8-16 weeks, continued pacing resulted in progressive LBBB-induced dysfunction, coincident with a transition to advanced strain patterns (92% LBBB-2 and 8% LBBB-3 at week 8; 75% LBBB-3 and 25% LBBB-4 at week 16) (P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The strain-based LBBB classification reflects a pathophysiological continuum of LBBB-induced remodeling over time and is associated with the extent of reverse remodeling in observational cardiac resynchronization therapy-eligible patients.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study.

AIMS: Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

An Electrocardiographic Characterization of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing-Induced Right Ventricular Activation Delay: A Comparison With Native Right Bundle Branch Block.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) induces delayed RV activation and is thought to be harmless, since the electrocardiographic signature is reminiscent to native RBBB. However, to what extent the delayed RV activation during LBBAP truly resembles that of native RBBB remains unexplored. Methods: This study included patients with incomplete RBBB (iRBBB), complete RBBB (cRBBB) and patients who underwent LBBAP. Global and right ventricular activation times were estimated by QRS duration and R wave peak time in lead V1 (V1RWPT) respectively. Delayed RV activation was further characterized by duration, amplitude and area of the terminal R wave in V1. Results: In patients with LBBAP (n = 86), QRS duration [120 ms (116, 132)] was longer compared to iRBBB patients (n = 422): 104 ms (98, 110), p < 0.001, but shorter compared to cRBBB (n = 223): 138 ms (130, 152), p < 0.001. V1RWPT during LBBAP [84 ms (72, 92)] was longer compared to iRBBB [74 ms (68, 80), p < 0.001], but shorter than cRBBB [96 ms (86, 108), p < 0.001]. LBBAP resulted in V1 R' durations [42 ms (28, 55)] comparable to iRBBB [42 ms (35, 49), p = 0.49] but shorter than in cRBBB [81 ms (68, 91), p < 0.001]. During LBBAP, the amplitude and area of the V1 R' wave were more comparable with iRBBB than cRBBB. V1RWPT during LBBAP was determined by baseline conduction disease, but not by LBBAP capture type. Conclusion: LBBAP-induced delayed RV activation electrocardiographically most closely mirrors the delayed RV activation as seen with incomplete rather than complete RBBB.

Initial experience of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven pacing leads: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been performed exclusively using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL) with fixed helix design. This registry study explores the safety and feasibility of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDL) with extendable helix design in a multicenter patient population. METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LBBAP for bradycardia pacing or heart failure indications at eight Belgian hospitals. LBBAP was attempted using SDL (Solia S60; Biotronik) delivered through dedicated delivery sheath (Selectra3D). Implant success, complications, procedural, and pacing characteristics were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: The study enrolled 353 patients (mean age 76 ± 39 years, 43% female). The mean number of implants per center was 25 (range: 5-162). Overall, LBBAP with SDL was successful in 334/353 (94%), varying from 93% to 100% among centers. Pacing response was labeled as left bundle branch pacing in 73%, whereas 27% were labeled as myocardial capture. Mean paced QRS duration and stimulus to left ventricular activation time measured 126 ± 21 ms and 74 ± 17. SDL-LBBAP resulted in low pacing thresholds (0.6 ± 0.4 V at 0.4 ms), which remained stable at 12 months follow-up (0.7 ± 0.3, p = .291). Lead revisions for SDL-LBBAP occurred in 5 (1.4%) patients occurred during a mean follow up of 9 ± 5 months. Five (1.4%) septal coronary artery fistulas and 8 (2%) septal perforations occurred, none of them causing persistent ventricular septal defects. CONCLUSION: The use of SDL to achieve LBBAP is safe and feasible, characterized by high implant success in low and high volume centers, low complication rates, and stable low pacing thresholds.

A Guide to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel pacing modality which aims to capture the left bundle branch area and avoids the detrimental effects of right ventricular pacing. Current approaches for LBBAP have been developed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL). Expanding the tools and leads for LBBAP might contribute to a wider adoption of this technique. Standard stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) differ from current LLL as they are characterized by a wider lead body diameter, are stylet-supported and often have a non-isodiametric extendable helix design. Although LBBAP can be performed safely with SDL, the implant technique of LBBAP differs compared to LLL. In the current overview we describe in detail how different types of SDL can be used to target a deep septal position and provide a practical guide on how to achieve LBBAP using SDL.

Personalized assessment of the cumulative complication risk of the atrial fibrillation ablation track: The AF-TRACK calculator.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy is associated with a non-negligible risk of complications and often requires repeat procedures (AF ablation track), implying repetitive exposure to procedural risk. Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a model to estimate individualized cumulative risk of complications in patients undergoing the AF ablation track (Atrial Fibrillation TRAck Complication risK [AF-TRACK] calculator). Methods: The model was derived from a multicenter cohort including 3762 AF ablation procedures in 2943 patients. A first regression model was fitted to predict the propensity for repeat ablation. The AF-TRACK calculator computed the risk of AF ablation track complications, considering the propensity for repeat ablation. Internal (cross-validation) and external (independent cohort) validation were assessed for discrimination capacity (area under the curve [AUC]) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL] test). Results: Complications (N = 111) occurred in 3.7% of patients (2.9% of procedures). Predictors included female sex, heart failure, sleep apnea syndrome, and repeat procedures. The model showed fair discrimination capacity to predict complications (AUC 0.61 [0.55-0.67]) and likelihood of repeat procedure (AUC 0.62 [0.60-0.64]), with good calibration (HL χ2 12.5; P = .13). The model maintained adequate discrimination capacity (AUC 0.67 [0.57-0.77]) and calibration (HL χ2 5.6; P = .23) in the external validation cohort. The validated model was used to create the Web-based AF-TRACK calculator. Conclusion: The proposed risk model provides individualized estimates of the cumulative risk of complications of undergoing the AF ablation track. The AF-TRACK calculator is a validated, easy-to-use, Web-based clinical tool to calibrate the risk-to-benefit ratio of this treatment strategy.