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.

Visualization of fibroblast activation using 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT after pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed field compared with cryoballoon ablation.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a novel ablation modality for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablating myocardium by electroporation without tissue-heating. With its different mechanism of tissue ablation, it is assumed that lesion creation is divergent to thermal energy sources. 68Ga-fibroblast-activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) PET/CT targets FAP-alpha expressed by activated fibroblasts. We aimed to assess 68Ga-FAPI uptake in pulmonary veins as surrogate for ablation damage after PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA). METHODS: 26 patients (15 PFA, 11 CBA) underwent 68Ga-FAPI-PET/CT after ablation. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and fibroblast-activation volumes of localized tracer uptake were assessed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. In PFA, focal FAPI uptake was only observed in 3/15 (20%) patients, whereas in the CBA cohort, 10/11 (90.9%) patients showed atrial visual uptake. We observed lower values of SUVmax (2.85 ± 0.56 vs 4.71 ± 2.06, P = 0.025) and FAV (1.13 ± 0.84 cm3 vs 3.91 ± 2.74 cm3, P = 0.014) along with a trend towards lower SUVpeak and SUVmean in PFA vs CBA patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tissue response with respect to fibroblast activation seems to be less pronounced in PFA compared to established thermal ablation systems. This functional assessment might contribute to a better understanding of lesion formation in thermal and PFA ablation potentially contributing to better safety outcomes.

Novel cryoballoon ablation system for pulmonary vein isolation: multicenter assessment of efficacy and safety-ANTARCTICA study.

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) either by balloon devices or radiofrequency forms the cornerstone of invasive atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. Although equally effective cryoballoon (CB)-based PVI offers shorter procedure duration and a better safety profile. Beside the worldwide established Arctic Front Advance system, a novel CB device, POLARx, was recently introduced. This CB incorporates unique features, which may translate into improved efficacy and safety. However, multicentre assessment of periprocedural efficacy and safety is lacking up to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 317 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF were included and underwent POLARx CB-based PVI in 6 centres from Germany and Italy. Acute efficacy and safety were assessed in this prospective multicenter observational study. In 317 patients [mean age: 64 ± 12 years, 209 of 317 (66%) paroxysmal AF], a total of 1256 pulmonary veins (PVs) were identified and 1252 (99,7%) PVs were successfully isolated utilizing mainly the short tip POLARx CB (82%). The mean minimal CB temperature was -57.9 ± 7°C. Real-time PVI was registered in 72% of PVs. The rate of serious adverse events was 6.0% which was significantly reduced after a learning curve of 25 cases (9.3% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.018). The rate of recurrence-free survival after mean follow-up of 226 ± 115 days including a 90-day blanking period was 86.1%. CONCLUSION: In this large multicentre assessment, the novel POLARx CB shows a promising efficacy and safety profile after a short learning curve.

Multi-national survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety on the post-approval clinical use of pulsed field ablation (MANIFEST-PF).

AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation modality that has demonstrated preferential tissue ablation, including no oesophageal damage, in first-in-human clinical trials. In the MANIFEST-PF survey, we investigated the 'real world' performance of the only approved PFA catheter, including acute effectiveness and safety-in particular, rare oesophageal effects and other unforeseen PFA-related complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective survey included all 24 clinical centres using the pentaspline PFA catheter after regulatory approval. Institution-level data were obtained on patient characteristics, procedure parameters, acute efficacy, and adverse events. With an average of 73 patients treated per centre (range 7-291), full cohort included 1758 patients: mean age 61.6 years (range 19-92), female 34%, first-time ablation 94%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 58/35%. Most procedures employed deep sedation without intubation (82.1%), and 15.1% were discharged same day. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was successful in 99.9% (range 98.9-100%). Procedure time was 65 min (38-215). There were no oesophageal complications or phrenic nerve injuries persisting past hospital discharge. Major complications (1.6%) were pericardial tamponade (0.97%) and stroke (0.4%); one stroke resulted in death (0.06%). Minor complications (3.9%) were primarily vascular (3.3%), but also included transient phrenic nerve paresis (0.46%), and TIA (0.11%). Rare complications included coronary artery spasm, haemoptysis, and dry cough persistent for 6 weeks (0.06% each). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of unselected patients, PFA was efficacious for PVI, and expressed a safety profile consistent with preferential tissue ablation. However, the frequency of 'generic' catheter complications (tamponade, stroke) underscores the need for improvement.

Experience and procedural efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation using the fourth and second generation cryoballoon: The shorter, the better?

BACKGROUND: The second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) provides effective and durable pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) associated with encouraging clinical outcome. The novel fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) incorporates a 40% shorter distal tip. This design change may translate into an increased rate of PVI real-time signal recording, facilitating an individualized ablation strategy using the time to effect (TTE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were prospectively enrolled. The first 150 consecutive patients underwent CB2 based PVI (CB2 group) and the last 150 consecutive patients were treated with the CB4 (CB4 group). A total of 594/594 (100%, CB4) and 589/594 (99.2%, CB2) pulmonary veins (PVs) were successfully isolated utilizing the CB4 and CB2, respectively (p = .283). The real-time PVI visualization rate was 47% (CB4) and 39% (CB2; p = .005) and the mean freeze cycle duration 200 ± 90 s (CB4) and 228 ± 110 s (CB2; p < .001), respectively. The total procedure time did not differ between the groups (CB4: 64 ± 32 min) and (CB2: 62 ± 29 min, p = .370). No differences in periprocedural complications were detected. CONCLUSIONS: A higher rate of real-time electrical PV recordings are seen using the CB4 as compared to CB2, which may facilitate an individualized ablation strategy using the TTE.

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse. METHODS: Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared. RESULTS: In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m2, PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m2; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement. CONCLUSION: In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function.

Impact of overweight and obesity on radiation dose and outcome in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation by cryoballoon and pulsed field ablation.

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using pulsed field ablation (PFA) or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) are commonly used single-shot techniques for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The number of overweight (BMI 25-30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI>30 kg/m2) patients undergoing PVI is increasing, but data on this patient population is limited. Methods: Consecutive AF patients with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 undergoing PFA- or CBA-PVI were included in this retrospective analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural parameters and 1-year AF-freedom were retrospectively analyzed and compared for both ablation modalities. Results: Of 115 patients (66 % men, 64 years [IQR: 58-71 years], 57 % overweight and 43 % obese) PFA- was performed in 68 % and CBA-PVI in 32 %. Contrast-dye volume (PFA: 80 ml [IQR: 60 - 117 ml] vs. CBA: 130 ml [IQR: 95 - 200 ml], P=0.001) and radiation exposure (PFA: 2196 cGy·cm2 [IQR: 1398 - 2973 cGy·cm2] vs. CBA: 3239 cGy·cm2 [IQR: 1288 - 5062 cGy·cm2], P=0.009) was lower in patients undergoing PFA-PVI. Logistic regression analysis identified obesity (OR: 5.58, 95 % CI: 1.63-19.06; P=0.006) and CBA-PVI (OR: 12.93, 95 % CI: 3.51-47.68; P <0.001) to be associated with increased radiation exposure. Both techniques were comparably safe (PFA: 4 % vs. CBA: 0 %; P=0.3). The median follow-up time was 145 days [IQR: 103 - 294 days]. AF-freedom after 1-year was similar in overweight (82 %) and obese patients (67 %) (HR: 0.61; 95 % CI: 0.29-1.28; P=0.19) as well as in PFA- and CBA-PVI patients (76 % vs. 76 %, HR: 1.37; 95 % CI: 0.63-2.99; P=0.42). Conclusion: Overweight and obese patients undergoing PFA-PVI had lower contrast-dye volume compared to CBA-PVI. Obesity was associated with increased radiation exposure. Both techniques were comparably safe. The 1-year AF-freedom was similar in overweight and obese patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation in the elderly: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases with age. Second-generation cryoballoon (CB2)-based PVI has demonstrated encouraging clinical results in the treatment of paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). The objective of this study was to assess data on safety, efficacy and long-term clinical success of CB2-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients ≥75 years of age. METHODS: CB2-based PVI was performed in 104 patients ≥75 years of age (elderly group) and symptomatic AF (PersAF: n = 44, 42.3%) in three highly experienced German EP centers. The data was compared to propensity score matched patients with age <75 years (n = 104, control group; PersAF: n = 45, 43.3%, p = 0.956). RESULTS: The median age of the elderly group was 77.5 [75, 80] years while it was 63 [52, 70] years of control group patients (p = 0.0001). The median procedure time was 92.5 [75, 120] minutes (elderly group) and 100 [75, 120] (control group), p = 0.124. Major complications were registered in 7/104 (6.7%) elderly patients and 7/104 (6.7%) control group patients (p = 0.999). Clinical success in terms of freedom from AF recurrence after one-year follow-up was 80% (95% CI: 72-88) and 82% (95% CI: 75-90) and after three-year follow-up 59% (95% CI: 47-74) and 49% (95% CI: 37 64) for the elderly group and the control group, respectively (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: CB2-based PVI in patients ≥75 years of age appears safe, is associated with low procedure times and shows promising clinical success rates equal to patients of the younger population.