Catheter Ablation versus Advanced Therapy for Patients with Severe Heart Failure and Ventricular Electrical Storm.

BACKGROUND: Current data on outcomes of an initial strategy of catheter ablation versus advanced therapy in patients with severe HF and ES are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation versus left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation (HT) in patients with severe heart failure (HF) and ventricular electric storm (ES). METHODS: Patients with severe HF and ES who underwent VT ablation, LVAD, or HT between 2012 and 2022 at our medical center were reviewed. Severe HF was defined as ejection fraction ≤ 35% or presence of severe restrictive, valvular or genetic cardiomyopathy. We assessed in-hospital adverse events and one-year outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 73 patients, 43 underwent VT ablation and 30 received advanced therapy (21 HT and 9 LVAD). One-year survival was similar (76.7% vs 86.7%, log-rank p = 0.308). However, 10 patients (23.3%) in the ablation group underwent HT during follow up. After multivariable analysis, UNOS status 1 or 2 by VT criteria (HR 5.52, 95% CI: 1.27-24.12; p = 0.023) and early VT recurrence (HR 5.67, 95% CI: 1.68-19.09; p = 0.005) were associated with HT or mortality in patients who underwent VT ablation. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe HF and ES who underwent VT ablation had similar overall survival as patients who directly proceeded with advanced therapy, although rates of HT were high during follow up. Predictors of HT or mortality after catheter ablation include UNOS status 1 or 2 by VT criteria and early VT recurrence.

Infra-Hisian Conduction Disturbance and Alternating Left Anterior/Posterior Fascicular Block.

We present an unusual case of alternating left anterior and left posterior fascicular block. Given the known risk for progression to complete atrioventricular block with alternating right bundle and left bundle branch block, we performed an electrophysiological study. Findings were consistent with infra-Hisian disease, and the patient underwent pacemaker implantation.

Impact of artificial intelligence arrhythmia mapping on time to first ablation, procedure duration, and fluoroscopy use.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) ECG arrhythmia mapping provides arrhythmia source localization using 12-lead ECG data; whether this information impacts procedural efficiency is unknown. We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate the hypothesis that AI ECG mapping may reduce time to ablation, procedural duration, and fluoroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases in which system output was used were retrospectively enrolled according to IRB-approved protocols at each site. Matched control cases were enrolled in reverse chronological order beginning on the last day for which the technology was unavailable. Controls were matched based upon physician, institution, arrhythmia, and a predetermined complexity rating. Procedural metrics, fluoroscopy data, and clinical outcomes were assessed from time-stamped medical records. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 28 patients (age 65 ± 11 years, 46% female, left atrial dimension 4.1 ± 0.9 cm, LVEF 50 ± 18%) and was similar to 28 controls. The most common arrhythmia types were atrial fibrillation (n = 10), premature ventricular complexes (n = 8), and ventricular tachycardia (n = 6). Use of the system was associated with a 19.0% reduction in time to ablation (133 ± 48 vs. 165 ± 49 min, p = 0.02), a 22.6% reduction in procedure duration (233 ± 51 vs. 301 ± 83 min, p < 0.001), and a 43.7% reduction in fluoroscopy (18.7 ± 13.3 vs. 33.2 ± 18.0 min, p < 0.001) versus controls. At 6 months follow-up, arrhythmia-free survival was 73.5% in the study group and 63.3% in the control group (p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Use of forward-solution AI ECG mapping is associated with reductions in time to first ablation, procedure duration, and fluoroscopy without an adverse impact on procedure outcomes or complications.

Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) induces cell death through electroporation using ultrarapid electrical pulses. We sought to compare the procedural efficiency characteristics, safety, and efficacy of ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using PFA compared with thermal energy ablation. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared ablation of AF with PFA versus thermal energy sources. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where RR < 1 and MD < 0 favor the PFA group. RESULTS: We included 6 comparative studies for a total of 1012 patients who underwent ablation of AF: 43.6% with PFA (n = 441) and 56.4% (n = 571) with thermal energy sources. There were significantly shorter procedures times with PFA despite a protocolized 20-min dwell time (MD - 21.95, 95% CI - 33.77, - 10.14, p = 0.0003), but with significantly longer fluroscopy time (MD 5.71, 95% CI 1.13, 10.30, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.59-2.44) or recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31, 1.34) between the PFA and thermal ablation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with shorter procedural times and longer fluoroscopy times, but no difference in periprocedural complications or rates of recurrent AF when compared to ablation with thermal energy sources. However, larger randomized control trials are needed.

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions.

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel energy source for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using ultrarapid electrical pulses to induce cell death via electroporation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and acute efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA vs thermal energy sources. Methods: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA and compared them to landmark clinical trials for ablation of AF with thermal energy sources. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to establish variance of raw proportions followed by the inverse with the random-effects model to combine the transformed proportions and generate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 5203 patients who underwent AF ablation. Among these patients, 54.6% (n = 2842) underwent PFA and 45.4% (n = 2361) underwent thermal ablation. There were significantly fewer periprocedural complications in the PFA group (2.05%; 95% CI 0.94-3.46) compared to the thermal ablation group (7.75%; 95% CI 5.40-10.47) (P = .001). When comparing AF recurrence up to 1 year, there was a statistically insignificant trend toward a lower prevalence of recurrence in the PFA group (14.24%; 95% CI 6.97-23.35) compared to the thermal ablation group (25.98%; 95% CI 15.75-37.68) (P = .132). Conclusion: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with lower rates of periprocedural complications and similar rates of acute procedural success and recurrent AF with up to 1 year of follow-up compared to ablation with thermal energy sources.

Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the very elderly (≥80 years old): Insights from the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation improves outcomes in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. However, its safety and efficacy in the very elderly (≥80 years old) is not well described. HYPOTHESIS: Ablation of AF in the very elderly is safe and effective. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent catheter ablation enrolled in the University of California, San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). RESULTS: Of 847 patients, 42 (5.0%) were 80 years of age or greater with a median age of 81.5 (80-82.3) and 805 (95.0%) were less than 80 years of age with a median age of 64.4 (57.6-70.2). Among those who were ≥80 years old, 29 were undergoing de novo ablation (69.0%), whereas in the younger cohort, 518 (64.5%) were undergoing de novo ablation (p = .548). There were no statistically significant differences in fluoroscopy (p = .406) or total procedure times (p = .076), AAD use (p = .611), or procedural complications (p = .500) between groups. After multivariable adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of any atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-1.23; p = .252), all-cause hospitalizations (AHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.60; p = .626), or all-cause mortality (AHR: 4.48; 95% CI: 0.59-34.07; p = .147) between the very elderly and the younger cohort. CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, catheter ablation of AF appears similarly effective and safe in patients 80 years or older when compared to a younger cohort.

Successful Noninvasive 12-Lead ECG Mapping-Guided Radiotherapy of Inaccessible Ventricular Tachycardia Substrate Due to Mechanical Valves.

In patients presenting with refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) and aortic and mitral mechanical prosthetic valves, traditional catheter ablation is challenging. We describe a case in which a novel noninvasive computational electrocardiogram mapping algorithm localized VT sources originating from substrate near the mechanical valves, in which stereotactic ablative radiotherapy eliminated VT in 1.5-year follow-up. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

In-hospital complications associated with pulmonary vein isolation with adjunctive lesions: the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry.

AIMS: No prior study has been adequately powered to evaluate real-world safety outcomes in those receiving adjunctive ablation lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We sought to evaluate characteristics and in-hospital complications among patients undergoing PVI with and without adjunctive lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between 2016 and 2020 were identified and stratified into paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent AF, and separated into PVI only, PVI + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, and PVI + adjunctive (superior vena cava isolation, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, atypical atrial flutter lines, other). Adjusted odds of adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 50 937 patients [PAF: 30 551 (60%), persistent AF: 20 386 (40%)] were included. Among those with PAF, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of complications between PVI + CTI or PVI + adjunctive when compared with PVI only. Among persistent AF, PVI + adjunctive was associated with a higher risk of any complication [3.0 vs. 4.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.58] and major complication (0.8 vs. 1.4%, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10-2.21), while no differences were observed in PVI + CTI compared with PVI only. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion type, and those receiving adjunctive lesions had a higher comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: Additional CTI ablation was common without an increased risk of complications. Adjunctive lesions other than CTI are commonly performed in those with more comorbidities and were associated with an increased risk of complications in persistent AF, although the current analysis is limited by high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion set type.