Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study.

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), for which pre-clinical and early-stage clinical data are suggestive of some degree of preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation without damage to adjacent structures. Here in the MANIFEST-17K study we assessed the safety of PFA by studying the post-approval use of this treatment modality. Of the 116 centers performing post-approval PFA with a pentaspline catheter, data were received from 106 centers (91.4% participation) regarding 17,642 patients undergoing PFA (mean age 64, 34.7% female, 57.8% paroxysmal AF and 35.2% persistent AF). No esophageal complications, pulmonary vein stenosis or persistent phrenic palsy was reported (transient palsy was reported in 0.06% of patients; 11 of 17,642). Major complications, reported for ~1% of patients (173 of 17,642), were pericardial tamponade (0.36%; 63 of 17,642) and vascular events (0.30%; 53 of 17,642). Stroke was rare (0.12%; 22 of 17,642) and death was even rarer (0.03%; 5 of 17,642). Unexpected complications of PFA were coronary arterial spasm in 0.14% of patients (25 of 17,642) and hemolysis-related acute renal failure necessitating hemodialysis in 0.03% of patients (5 of 17,642). Taken together, these data indicate that PFA demonstrates a favorable safety profile by avoiding much of the collateral damage seen with conventional thermal ablation. PFA has the potential to be transformative for the management of patients with AF.

Pulmonary vein isolation using pulsed field ablation vs. high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: efficacy, safety, and long-term follow-up (PRIORI study).

AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, non-thermal, cardiac tissue-selective ablation modality. To date, radiofrequency (RF)-guided high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation represents the gold standard besides cryo-ablation for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). This single-centre, retrospective study investigated the efficacy of PFA-PVI vs. HPSD-RF PVI in terms of single-procedure arrhythmia-free outcome and safety in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who underwent PVI using PFA or HPSD-RF were enrolled. In group PFA, PVI was performed using a pentaspline PFA catheter. The ablation procedure in group HPSD-RF was performed with RF energy (45 W, ablation index). A total of 410 patients (group PFA, 201; group HPSD-RF, 209) were included. There was no difference between both groups regarding age, gender, and CHA2DS2-VASc score. The procedure time was significantly shorter in group PFA [61 (44-103) vs. 125 (105-143) min; P < 0.001]; fluoroscopy time and dose area product were significantly higher in group PFA [16 (13-20) vs. 4 (2-5) min; P < 0.01 and 412 (270-739) vs. 129 (58-265) µGym2; P < 0.01]. The overall complication rates were 2.9% in group PFA and 6.2% in group HPSD (P = 0.158). There was one fatal stroke in the PFA group. The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia was 85% with PFA and 79% with HPSD-RF (log-rank P = 0.160). In 56 repeat ablation procedures, the PV reconnection rate was 30% after PFA and 38% after HPSD-RF (P = 0.372). CONCLUSION: Both PFA and HPSD-RF were highly efficient and effective in achieving PVI in paroxysmal AF patients. The arrhythmia-free survival is comparable. The PV reconnection rate was not different.

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.

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.

Durability of Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using Pulsed-Field Ablation: Results From the Multicenter EU-PORIA Registry.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a novel nonthermal ablation technology with high procedural safety and efficiency for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Premarket data showed high PVI durability during mandatory remapping studies. Data on lesion durability in real-world patients with clinically indicated redo procedures are scarce. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report PVI durability rates in patients undergoing a clinically indicated redo procedure after an index PVI using PFA. METHODS: Patients from 7 European centers undergoing an index PVI using PFA were included the EU-PORIA (European Real-world Outcomes With Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation) registry. In patients with subsequent left atrial redo procedures due to arrhythmia recurrence, 3-dimensional electroanatomical maps were acquired. PVI durability was assessed on a per-vein and per-patient level, and sites of reconnections and predictors of lesion durability were identified. RESULTS: Of 1,184 patients (62% paroxysmal atrial fibrillation) undergoing an index PVI using PFA, 272 (23%) had an arrhythmia recurrence. Of these, 144 (53%) underwent a left atrial redo procedure a median of 7 (Q1-Q3: 5-10) months after the first ablation. Three-dimensional electroanatomical maps identified 404 of 567 pulmonary veins (71%) with durable isolation. In 54 patients (38%), all pulmonary veins were durably isolated. Prior operator experience with cryoballoon ablation was associated with a higher PVI durability compared to operators with only point-by-point radiofrequency experience (76% vs 60%; P < 0.001). Neither the operators' cumulative experience in atrial fibrillation ablation (≤5 vs >5 years) nor the size of the PFA device used (31 mm vs 35 mm) had an impact on subsequent lesion durability (both P > 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: In 144 patients with arrhythmia recurrence after PFA PVI, durable isolation was observed in 71% of the pulmonary veins during the redo procedure, and 38% of all patients showed durable isolation of all veins.