Genetic testing for Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes and Cardiomyopathies: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey.

Indications and clinical impact of genetic testing for cardiac diseases have increased significantly over the past years. The aim of this physician-based EHRA survey was to assess current clinical practice and access to genetic testing for cardiac diseases across ESC countries and to evaluate adherence to the 2022 EHRA/HRS/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on genetic testing. An online questionnaire composed of 28 questions was submitted to the EHRA Research Network and European Reference Network GUARD-Heart healthcare partners and promoted via dedicated social media channels. There were 357 respondents from 69 countries, 40% working in a hospital setting with a cardiac genetic service and/or a dedicated clinic focusing on inherited cardiac diseases and 27% with an onsite genetic laboratory. No genetic testing or low annual rate (<10/y) was declared by 39% of respondents. The majority of respondents (78%) declared issues or limitations to genetic testing access in their clinical practice. The main reasons for not providing or limited access to genetic testing were no availability of dedicated unit or genetic laboratory (35%) or reimbursement issues (25%). The most frequently reported indication for genetic testing was diagnostic purpose (55%). Most respondents (92%) declared offering genetic testing preceded by genetic counselling and 42% regular multidisciplinary evaluations for patients with cardiac genetic diseases. The perceived value of genetic testing in the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic assessment was variable (67%, 39%, and 29%, respectively) and primarily based on the specific inherited disease. The majority of respondents recommended cascade genetic testing for the first-degree family members in case of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in the proband. This survey highlights a significant heterogeneity of genetic testing access and provision and issues attributable to the availability of dedicated unit/genetic laboratory and reimbursement. However, adequate adherence to indications in the current recommendations for genetic testing in patients with cardiac diseases was observed.

pyCEPS: A cross-platform electroanatomic mapping data to computational model conversion platform for the calibration of digital twin models of cardiac electrophysiology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Data from electro-anatomical mapping (EAM) systems are playing an increasingly important role in computational modeling studies for the patient-specific calibration of digital twin models. However, data exported from commercial EAM systems are challenging to access and parse. Converting to data formats that are easily amenable to be viewed and analyzed with commonly used cardiac simulation software tools such as openCARP remains challenging. We therefore developed an open-source platform, pyCEPS, for parsing and converting clinical EAM data conveniently to standard formats widely adopted within the cardiac modeling community. METHODS AND RESULTS: pyCEPS is an open-source Python-based platform providing the following functions: (i) access and interrogate the EAM data exported from clinical mapping systems; (ii) efficient browsing of EAM data to preview mapping procedures, electrograms (EGMs), and electro-cardiograms (ECGs); (iii) conversion to modeling formats according to the openCARP standard, to be amenable to analysis with standard tools and advanced workflows as used for in silico EAM data. Documentation and training material to facilitate access to this complementary research tool for new users is provided. We describe the technological underpinnings and demonstrate the capabilities of pyCEPS first, and showcase its use in an exemplary modeling application where we use clinical imaging data to build a patient-specific anatomical model. CONCLUSION: With pyCEPS we offer an open-source framework for accessing EAM data, and converting these to cardiac modeling standard formats. pyCEPS provides the core functionality needed to integrate EAM data in cardiac modeling research. We detail how pyCEPS could be integrated into model calibration workflows facilitating the calibration of a computational model based on EAM data.

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

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

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

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

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.

Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation fails to prevent transient atrial arrhythmogenic changes related to acute obstructive respiratory events in a porcine model.

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the corner stone of modern rhythm control strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is prevalent in more than 50% of patients undergoing AF ablation, and studies have indicated a greater recurrence rate after PVI in patients with SDB. Herein, we study the effect of catheter-based PVI on AF in a pig model for SDB. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 11 sedated spontaneously breathing pigs, obstructive apnoeas were simulated by 75 s of intermittent negative upper airway pressure (INAP) applied by a negative pressure device connected to the endotracheal tube. Intermittent negative upper airway pressures were performed before and after PVI. AF-inducibility and atrial effective refractory periods (aERPs) were determined before and during INAP by programmed atrial stimulation. Pulmonary vein isolation prolonged the aERP by 48 ± 27 ms in the right atrium (RA) (P < 0.0001) and by 40 ± 34 ms in the left atrium (LA) (P = 0.0004). Following PVI, AF-inducibility dropped from 28 ± 26% to 0% (P = 0.0009). Intermittent negative upper airway pressure was associated with a transient aERP-shortening (ΔaERP) in both atria, which was not prevented by PVI (INAP indued ΔaERP after PVI in the RA: -57 ± 34 ms, P = 0.0002; in the LA: -42 ± 24 ms, P < 0.0001). Intermittent negative upper airway pressure was associated with a transient increase in AF-inducibility (from 28 ± 26% to 69 ± 21%; P = 0.0008), which was not attenuated by PVI [INAP-associated AF-inducibility after PVI: 58 ± 33% (P = 0.5)]. CONCLUSION: Transient atrial arrhythmogenic changes related to acute obstructive respiratory events are not prevented by electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins, which partially explains the increased AF recurrence in patients with SDB after PVI procedures.

Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation and its implications for modern cardiac electrophysiology: results of an EHRA survey.

Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) is a treatment option for recurrent ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) in patients with structural heart disease (SHD). The current and future role of STAR as viewed by cardiologists is unknown. The study aimed to assess the current role, barriers to application, and expected future role of STAR. An online survey consisting of 20 questions on baseline demographics, awareness/access, current use, and the future role of STAR was conducted. A total of 129 international participants completed the survey [mean age 43 ± 11 years, 25 (16.4%) female]. Ninety-one (59.9%) participants were electrophysiologists. Nine participants (7%) were unaware of STAR as a therapeutic option. Sixty-four (49.6%) had access to STAR, while 62 (48.1%) had treated/referred a patient for treatment. Common primary indications for STAR were recurrent VT/VF in SHD (45%), recurrent VT/VF without SHD (7.8%), or premature ventricular contraction (3.9%). Reported main advantages of STAR were efficacy in the treatment of arrhythmias not amenable to conventional treatment (49%) and non-invasive treatment approach with overall low expected acute and short-term procedural risk (23%). Most respondents have foreseen a future clinical role of STAR in the treatment of VT/VF with or without underlying SHD (72% and 75%, respectively), although only a minority expected a first-line indication for it (7% and 5%, respectively). Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation as a novel treatment option of recurrent VT appears to gain acceptance within the cardiology community. Further trials are critical to further define efficacy, patient populations, as well as the appropriate clinical use for the treatment of VT.

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.

Changes in healthcare utilisation during implementation of remote atrial fibrillation management: TeleCheck-AF project.

AIM: To evaluate changes in healthcare utilisation and comprehensive packages of care activities and procedures (referred in the Netherlands to as 'diagnose-behandelcombinatie (DBC) care products) during the implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach (teleconsultation supported by app-based heart rate/rhythm monitoring) in a Dutch atrial fibrillation (AF) clinic. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ AF Clinic, data on healthcare utilisation and DBC care products for patients consulted by both a conventional approach in 2019 and the TeleCheck-AF approach in 2020 were analysed. A patient experience survey was performed. Thirty-seven patients (median age 68 years; 40% women) were analysed. With the conventional approach, 35 face-to-face consultations and 0 teleconsultations were conducted. After the implementation of TeleCheck-AF, the number of face-to-face consultations dropped by 80% (p < 0.001) and teleconsultations increased to 45 (p < 0.001). While 42 electrocardiograms (ECGs) and 25 Holter ECGs or echocardiograms were recorded when using the conventional approach, the number of ECGs decreased by 71% (p < 0.001) and Holter ECGs or echocardiograms by 72% (p < 0.001) with the TeleCheck-AF approach. The emergency department patient presentations showed no statistically significant change (p = 0.33). Overall, 57% of medium-weight DBC care products were changed to light-weight ones during implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach. Patient satisfaction with the TeleCheck-AF approach was high. CONCLUSION: The implementation of TeleCheck-AF led to a change in healthcare utilisation, a change from medium-weight to light-weight DBC care products and a reduction in patient burden. These results created the basis for a new reimbursement code for the TeleCheck-AF approach in the Netherlands.

Network analysis of the social media activities around the #TeleCheckAF project.

Aims: TeleCheck-AF is a novel remote on-demand mobile health infrastructure around teleconsultations for patients with atrial fibrillation. Social media (SoMe) communication on Twitter contributed to the dissemination of this healthcare innovation by using the hashtag #TeleCheckAF. This study aims to analyse the SoMe network behind #TeleCheckAF and determine the key opinion leaders. Methods and results: Publicly available data on actors and interactions around the hashtag #TeleCheckAF were collected by web scraping from the platform Twitter. With tools based on social network analysis, a social network was created, different communities were identified, and key opinion leaders were determined by their centrality in the network. The SoMe network consisted of 413 086 accounts with 636 502 ties in 22 different communities. A total of 287 accounts that diffused information and/or used the TeleCheck-AF infrastructure were analysed in depth. Those accounts involved users from >15 different countries and multidisciplinary professions. Further, 20 opinion leaders were identified, including four official accounts of societies and associated journals among key opinion leaders. Peaks in #TeleCheckAF tweets were seen after (virtual) conferences and other activities involving national and international cardiology societies. Social network analysis of the TeleCheck-AF Twitter hashtag revealed a wide, multidisciplinary potential reach for the diffusion of a healthcare innovation. Conclusion: Official society SoMe accounts can amplify the dissemination of research findings by featuring abstract presentations during conferences and published manuscripts. This underlines the synergistic effects between traditional and SoMe-based research dissemination strategies for novel healthcare approaches, such as the TeleCheck-AF project.