Search

Background: The ability to predict recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in response to guideline-directed therapy among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy is desired. We sought to determine whether left ventricular endocardial unipolar voltage measured during invasive electroanatomic mapping could be used to predict LVEF recovery among those with recent-onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy., Methods: We analyzed the left ventricular voltage maps of patients included in the eMAP trial (Electrogram-Guided Myocardial Advanced Phenotyping; NCT03293381), a prospective, nonrandomized, interventional trial conducted at 2 institutions between 2017 and 2020. Patients had recent-onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy defined by LVEF ≤45% and development of symptoms or signs of heart failure within the past 6 months. Detailed voltage maps of the left ventricular endocardium were generated using the CARTO electroanatomic mapping system. Abnormal unipolar amplitude was defined as <8.27 mV. The primary end point was recovery of LVEF (Recovery) defined by a 1-year LVEF ≥50% or ≥45% with ≥10% increase from baseline., Results: Of the 29 enrolled patients (median age, 49 years [25th percentile, 39; 75th percentile, 59], 8 females [27.6%]), LVEF recovered in 13 (44.8%) by 1-year follow-up. The percentage of total endocardial surface area with unipolar voltage abnormality (AUA) was significantly lower among Recovery patients than No Recovery patients (18.2% [6.4, 22.4] versus 80.0% [29.5, 90.9]; P =0.004). Percent AUA was associated with lower likelihood of Recovery (odds ratio, 0.64 per 10% increase in AUA; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88; P =0.006). A 28% cutoff value for percent AUA was 92% sensitive and 75% specific with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-0.99; P =0.001) for predicting recovery versus no recovery. The majority of patients (12 of 13; 92.3%) with a percent AUA >28% did not recover., Conclusions: Left ventricular unipolar voltage abnormality is a potent predictor of LVEF recovery among patients recently diagnosed with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Detailed left ventricular unipolar voltage mapping could therefore be used as a valuable prognostic tool in guiding treatment decisions.

Background and Aims: Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are not recommended until left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been reassessed 40 to 90 days after an acute myocardial infarction. In the current therapeutic era, the prognosis of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occurring during this early post-infarction phase (i.e. within 3 months of hospital discharge) has not yet been specifically evaluated in post-myocardial infarction patients with impaired LVEF. Such was the aim of this retrospective study., Methods: Data analysis was based on a nationwide registry of 1032 consecutive patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after acute myocardial infarction who were implanted with an ICD after being prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) for a period of 3 months upon discharge from hospital after the index infarction., Results: ICDs were implanted either because a sustained VA occurred while on WCD (VA+/WCD, n = 72) or because LVEF remained ≤35% at the end of the early post-infarction phase (VA-/WCD, n = 960). The median follow-up was 30.9 months. Sustained VAs occurred within 1 year after ICD implantation in 22.2% and 3.5% of VA+/WCD and VA-/WCD patients, respectively (P < .0001). The adjusted multivariable analysis showed that sustained VAs while on WCD independently predicted recurrence of sustained VAs at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 6.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.73-12.81; P < .0001) and at the end of follow-up (adjusted HR 3.86; 95% CI 2.37-6.30; P < .0001) as well as 1-year mortality (adjusted HR 2.86; 95% CI 1.28-6.39; P = .012)., Conclusions: In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, sustained VA during the early post-infarction phase is predictive of recurrent sustained VAs and 1-year mortality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.S., R.A.H., J.F., H.E., and P.M.: none declared; C.C. is a consultant for and has received lecture fees from Medtronic. P.O. has received consulting fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Zoll. L.C.-R. has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort CRM. F.A. a is consultant for and has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort CRM.

Background: Learning to interpret electrocardiograms (ECGs) is a crucial objective in medical education. Despite its importance, errors in ECGs interpretation are common, and the optimal teaching methods have not yet been clearly established., Objectives: To evaluate students' confidence in ECGs analysis and their opinion on current teaching methods, and to assess the effectiveness of a new ECG educational approach., Methods: First, we conducted a survey on ECG learning among fourth to sixth-year medical students. Second, a 5-week multicenter comparative study was conducted with fourth-year medical students during their cardiology internship. Two different teaching methods were used, assigned by center. The first group participated in 5-minutes workshops 4 times a week using a "reversed classroom" method, supervised by a cardiologist, where students took turns selecting, presenting and discussing ECGs. The control group attended a single 2-hour face-to-face ECG course. All participants completed a 30-minute ECGs analysis test at baseline and after 5 weeks., Results: Out of 401 survey respondents, the confidence levels in ECG interpretation were 3/5 (IQR 2-3) for routine situations and 2/5 (IQR 1-3) for emergency situations. Satisfaction with ECG teaching was low (2/5, IQR 1-3) and 96.3% of respondents favored more extensive ECG training. In the comparative study, 52 students from 3 medical schools were enrolled (control group: n = 27; workshop group: n = 25). Both groups showed significant improvement in exam scores from baseline to 5-week (33/100 ± 12/100 to 44/100 ± 12/100, p < 0.0001 for the control group and 36/100 ± 13/100 to 62/100 ± 12/100, p < 0.0001 for the workshop group). The improvement was significantly greater in the workshop group compared to the control group (+ 26 ± 11 vs. + 11 ± 6, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Among French medical students who initially reported low confidence and insufficient skills in ECG interpretation, the workshop approach using a "reversed classroom" method was found to be more effective than conventional lecture-based teaching during cardiology internship., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) can be associated with undetected distinct conditions such as microstructural cardiomyopathic alterations (MiCM) or Purkinje (Purk) activities with structurally normal hearts., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the characteristics of recurrent VF recorded on implantable defibrillator electrograms, associated with these substrates., Methods: This was a multicenter collaboration study. At 32 centers, we selected patients with an initial diagnosis of IVF and recurrent arrhythmia at follow-up without antiarrhythmic drugs, in whom mapping demonstrated Purk or MiCM substrate. We analyzed variables related to previous ectopy, sinus rate preceding VF, trigger, and initial VF cycle lengths. Logistic regression with cross validation was used to evaluate the performance of criteria to discriminate Purk or MiCM substrates., Results: Among 95 patients (35 women, age 35 ± 11 years) meeting the inclusion criteria, IVF was associated with MiCM in 41 and Purk in 54 patients. A total of 117 arrhythmia recurrences including 91% VF were recorded on defibrillator. Three variables were mostly discriminant. Sinus tachycardia (≤570 ms) was more frequent in MiCM (35.9% vs 13.4%, P = 0.014) whereas short-coupled (<350 ms) triggers were most frequent in Purk-related VF (95.5% vs 23.1%, P = 0.001), which also had shorter VFCLs (182 ± 15 ms vs 215 ± 24 ms, P < 0.001).The multivariable combination provided the highest prediction (accuracy = 0.93 ± 0.05, range 0.833-1.000), discriminating 81% of IVF substrates with a high probability (>80%). Ectopy were inconsistently present before VF., Conclusions: Characteristics of arrhythmia recurrences on implantable cardioverter- defibrillator provide phenotypic markers of the distinct and hidden substrates underlying IVF. These findings have significant clinical and genetic implications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Haissaguerre has received grant support from Biosense Webster. Dr Marijon has received grant support and consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Microport, Biotronik, and Zoll. Pr Gandjbakhch has received lecture fees from Biotronik; and consulting fees from Medtronic, Microport, and Abbott. Dr Tilz is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Biosense Webster, and Abbott Medical; has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Biosense Webster, Abbott Medical, and Lifetech; and has received research grants from Abbott, Biosense Webster, and Lifetech. Dr Roten has received research grants from Medtronic, the Swiss National Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Immanuel and Ilse Straub Foundation, and the Sitem Insel Support Fund, all for work outside the submitted study; and has received speaker/consulting honoraria from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Reichlin has receivedresearch grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Sitem Insel support funds, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic, all for work outside the submitted study; and has received speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic, all for work outside the submitted study. Support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic for work outside the submitted study. Dr Sacher has receivedspeaking honorarium from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster; and equity from InHeart. Dr Nogami has received lecture fees from Abbott; and endowments from Medtronic. Dr Massoullié has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Abbot. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting., Aim: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice., Methods: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause., Results: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%)., Conclusion: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: None.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P.O. received consulting fees from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. M.M. received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbott, Bayer Healthcare, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and BMS/Pfizer and research grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. S.C. received consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott and Boston Scientific. P.M. received consulting fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific. L.C.-R. received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. F.A. received consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Microport CRM, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Epicardial (Epi) access is commonly required during ventricular tachycardia ablation. Conventional Epi (ConvEpi) access targets a "dry" pericardial space presenting technical challenges and risk of complications. Recently, intentional puncture of coronary venous branches with Epi carbon dioxide insufflation (EpiCO 2 ) has been described as a technique to improve Epi access. The safety of this technique relative to conventional methods remains unproven., Objectives: The authors sought to compare the feasibility and safety of EpiCO 2 to ConvEpi access., Methods: All patients at a high-volume center undergoing Epi access between January 2021 and December 2023 were included and grouped according to ConvEpi or EpiCO 2 approach. Access technique was according to the discretion of the operator., Results: Epi access was attempted in 153 cases by 17 different operators (80 ConvEpi vs 73 EpiCO 2 ). There was no difference in success rate whether the ConvEpi or EpiCO 2 approach was used (76 [95%] cases vs 67 [91.8%] cases; P = 0.4). Total Epi access time was shorter in the ConvEpi group compared with the EpiCO 2 group (16.3 ± 11.6 minutes vs 26.9 ± 12.7 minutes; P < 0.001), though the total procedure duration was similar. Major Epi access-related complications occurred in only the ConvEpi group (6 [7.5%] ConvEpi vs 0 [0%] EpiCo 2 ; P = 0.02). Bleeding ≥80 mL was more frequently observed following ConvEpi access (14 [17.5%] cases vs 4 [5.5%] cases; P = 0.02). After adjusting for age, repeat Epi access, and antithrombotic therapy, EpiCO 2 was associated with a reduction in bleeding ≥80 mL (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08-0.89; P = 0.03)., Conclusions: EpiCO 2 access is associated with lower rates of major complication and bleeding when compared with ConvEpi access., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Oraii, Marchlinski, and Hyman are supported by the Leducq Foundation (TNE FANTASY 19CV03). Dr Chaumont also acknowledges the “Fédération Française de Cardiologie,” the “Fondation Charles Nicolle-Normandie,” the “GSC G4,” the “Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology,” and the “Philippe Foundation.” Dr Hyman has been a consultant for Asahi Intecc, Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although the epicardial predominance of substrate abnormalities has been well demonstrated in early stages of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), endocardial (ENDO) ablation may suffice to eliminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) in some patients., Objectives: This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes of ENDO-only ablation in ARVC patients and factors that predict VT-free survival., Methods: We included consecutive patients with Task Force Criteria diagnosis of ARVC undergoing a first ENDO-only VT ablation between 1998 and 2020. Ablation was predominantly guided by activation/entrainment mapping for mappable VTs and pace mapping/targeting abnormal electrograms for unmappable VTs. The primary endpoint was freedom from any recurrent sustained VT after the last ENDO-only ablation., Results: Seventy-four ARVC patients underwent ENDO-only VT ablation. VT noninducibility was achieved in 49 (66%) patients. During median follow-up of 6.6 years (Q1-Q3: 3.4-11.2 years), 40 (54.1%) patients remained free from any VT recurrence with rare VT ≤2 episodes in additional 12.2%. Among patients with noninducibility, VT-free survival was 75.5% during long-term follow-up. In multivariable analysis, >45 y of age at diagnosis (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98) and VT noninducibility (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80) were predictors of VT-free survival., Conclusions: Long-term VT-free survival can be achieved in over half of ARVC patients following ENDO-only VT ablation, increasing to over 75% if VT noninducibility is achieved. Our results support consideration of a stepwise ENDO-only approach before proceeding to epicardial ablation if VT noninducibility can be achieved particularly in older patients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by the Winkelman Family Fund in Cardiovascular Innovation, Katherine J. Miller EP Research Fund, Bogle Family Fund in Cardiac Electrophysiology, and F. Harlan Batrus EP Research Fund. Dr Chaumont acknowledges the Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Fondation Charles Nicolle-Normandie, GSC G4, Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology, and Philippe Foundation. Dr Nazarian has served as a consultant for and received research funding from Biosense Webster Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Hyman is a consultant for Asahi Intecc, Inc. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Prediction of outcomes remains an unmet need in candidates for LVADs. The development of right-heart failure portends an excess in mortality rates, but imaging parameters of right ventricular systolic function have failed to demonstrate a prognostic role. By integrating pulmonary pressure, right ventriculoarterial coupling could fill this gap., Methods: The ASSIST-ICD registry was used to test right ventriculoarterial coupling as a surrogate parameter at implantation for the prediction of all-cause mortality., Results: The ratio of the tricuspid annular-plane systolic excursion over the estimated systolic pulmonary pressure (TAPSE/sPAP) was not associated with long-term survival in univariate analysis (P = 0.89), nor was the pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) (P = 0.13). Conversely, the ratio of the right atrial pressure over the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (RAP/PCWP) was associated with all-cause mortality (P < 0.01). After taking tricuspid regurgitation severity, LVAD indication, LVAD model, age, blood urea nitrogen levels, and pulmonary vascular resistance into account, RAP/PCWP remained associated with survival (HR 1.35 [1.10 - 1.65]; P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Among pre-implant RVAC surrogates, only RAP/PCWP was associated with long-term all-cause mortality in LVAD recipients. This association was independent of established risk factors., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electrocardiographic screening before subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is unsuccessful in around 10% of cases. A personalized screening method, by slightly moving the electrodes, to obtain a better R/T ratio has been described to overcome traditional screening failure., Objective: The objectives of the SIS study were to assess to what extent a personalized screening method improves eligibility for S-ICD implantation and to evaluate the inappropriate shock rate after such screening success., Methods: All consecutive patients eligible for an S-ICD implantation were prospectively recruited across 20 French centers between December 2019 and January 2022. In case of traditional screening failure, patients received a second personalized screening. If at least 1 vector was positive, the personalized screening was considered successful, and the patient was eligible for implantation., Results: The study included 474 patients (mean age, 50.4 ± 14.1 years; 77.4% men). Traditional screening was successful in 456 (96.2%) cases. This figure rose to 98.3% (n = 466; P = .002) when personalized screening was performed. All patients implanted after successful personalized screening had correct signal detection on initial device interrogation. Nevertheless, after 1-year follow-up, 3 of the 7 patients (43%) implanted with personalized screening experienced inappropriate shock vs 18 of the 427 patients (4.2%) with traditional screening and S-ICD implantation (P = .003)., Conclusion: Traditional S-ICD screening was successful in our study in a high proportion of patients. Considering the small improvement in success of screening and a higher rate of inappropriate shock, a strategy of personalized screening cannot be routinely recommended., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT04101253., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Boston Scientific provided a grant to help fund data collection but was not otherwise involved with study design or analysis and did not have access to this manuscript before submission. Dr Turagam has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific Inc, and AltaThera and speaker honoraria from Sanofi and Medtronic. Dr Neuzil has received a grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, Development of Research Organizations (DRO), Na Homolka Hospital (NHH) (0023884). Dr Schmidt has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin has received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund; speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS; and support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Journal Pre-proof 21 Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Neven has received speaker fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Metzner has received a research grant and fees from Farapulse. Dr Hansen has received speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw has received research grants from Medtronic and Atricure and consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer has served as a member of the Advisory Board for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. He has received modest honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Anic has received consultant fees from Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster and has performed contracted research for Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke has received speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik, has been a consultant to Farapulse, and has served on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Tilz has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster and speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster. Dr Scherr has received an educational grant from Farapulse Inc and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili has received investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific and speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Steven has received speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; grants from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Kautzner has received personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in Scientific Advisory Boards and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. Dr Jais has received partial funding from L'institut Des Maladies Du Rythme Cardiaque, LIRYC ANR-10-IAHU-04, equity from Farapulse, and consulting fees and a grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Chun has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Roten has received research grants from Medtronic, the Swiss National Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Immanuel and Ilse Straub Foundation, and the Sitem Insel Support Fund and speaker fees/honoraria from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Medtronic. Dr Lemoine has received a research grant from Farapulse. Dr Rollin has received a research grant from Farapulse. Dr Gunawardene has received grants from Farapulse Inc and Abbott. Dr Heeger has received travel grants and research grants from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus and speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech. Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus and he has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Journal Pre-proof 22 Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Manninger has received speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and BMS/Pfizer and research grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. Dr Sultan has received lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Derval has received receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy has received consulting fees (and equity—now divested) from Farapulse Inc; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc; unrelated to this manuscript, has also served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Anumana, Apama Medical–Boston Scientific, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics–Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, Laminar Medical, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera–Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, and Valcare; unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adagio Medical, Append Medical, AtriAN, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Pulse Biosciences; and unrelated to this work, has equity in Atraverse, DRS Vascular, Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Soundcath, Surecor, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 (HF P EF; LVEF≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly-reduced EF (HF MR/R EF; 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 HF P EF, and 8.6% (n=120) were HF MR/R EF. 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 HF P EF or HF MR/R EF (79.9%, 71.3%, 67.5%, p<0.001), but similar between HF MR/R EF and HF P EF (p=0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HF P EF vs HF MR/R EF 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, HF P EF and HF MR/R EF 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., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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 CHA 2 DS 2 -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., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Boston Scientific provided a grant to help fund data collection but was not otherwise involved with study design or analysis nor did they have access to this manuscript before submission. Dr Turagam has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster; and has received speaker honorarium from Sanofi and Medtronic. Dr Neuzil has received grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, DRO (NHH, 00023884). Dr Schmidt has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin has received grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund; has received speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS; and has received support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Metzner has received grants and fees from Farapulse. Dr Hansen has received speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw has received grants from Medtronic and Atricure; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer has been a member of the advisory boards for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Anic has received consultant fees from Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, Biosense Webster; and has performed contracted research for Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke has received speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik; has received consulting fees from Farapulse; and has served on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Tilz reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster and speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster. Dr Scherr has received an educational grant from Farapulse Inc; and is a consultant For Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili has received consulting fees and travel expenses from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; has received investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific; and has received speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Scherr has received speaking fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; has received grants from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Kautzner has received personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in scientific advisory boards; and has received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. Dr Jais has received partial funding from IHU LIRYC ANR-10-IAHU-04; has received equity from Farapulse; and has received consulting fees and grants from Boston Scientific. Dr Chun has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Roten has received speaker honoraria from Abbott/SJM; has received consulting honoraria from Medtronic; and has received research funding to the institution from Medtronic. Dr Lemoine has received grants from Farapulse. Dr Rollin has received grants from Farapulse. Dr Nentwich has received speaker fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Gunawardine has received grants from Farapulse Inc and Abbott. Dr Heeger has received travel grants and research grants from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus; has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Manninger has received speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and BMS/Pfizer; and has received grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. Dr Sultan has received lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Derval has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy has received consulting fees (and equity – now divested) from Farapulse Inc; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific Inc; and, unrelated to this manuscript, has served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, Anumana, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics-Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, Laminar, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, Valcare; also unrelated to this work, he has received consulting fees from AtriAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips, and Pulse Biosciences; and he has equity in Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Surecor, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pulsed field ablation has recently emerged as an interesting non-thermal energy for atrial fibrillation ablation. At a time of rapid spread of this technology, there is still a lack of prospective real-life data., Aim: To describe multicentre prospective safety and 1-year efficacy data in three of the first French centres to use pulsed field ablation., Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing a first pulsed field ablation were included prospectively. The primary outcome was freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia. The safety endpoint was a composite of major adverse events. Univariate and multivariable analyses, including patient and procedural characteristics, were performed to identify factors predictive of recurrence., Results: Between May 2021 and June 2022, 311 patients were included (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 53%, persistent atrial fibrillation in 35% and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation in 11%). Additional non-pulmonary vein pulsed field ablation applications were performed in 104/311 patients. One-year freedom from arrhythmia recurrence was 77.6% in the overall population and was significantly higher in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (88.4%) compared with patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (69.7%; P<0.001) and those with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (49.0%; P<0.001). The major complication rate was 2.6% (tamponade in four patients, stroke in two patients and coronary spasm in one patient). Besides the usual predictors of recurrences (left atrium size, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, type of atrial fibrillation), the presence of atrial fibrillation at procedure start was independently associated with arrhythmia recurrence (hazard ratio: 2.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-3.77)., Conclusion: In this prospective multicentre real-world study, pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation ablation seems to be associated with a good safety profile and rather favourable acute and 1-year success rates., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: Cryoballoon ablation is currently the gold standard technique for single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as an interesting nonthermal alternative energy for PVI. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of PVI using the pentaspline PFA catheter in comparison to cryoballoon ablation., Methods and Results: Between January 2021 and December 2022, we included all consecutive patients of our center in whom a first PVI-only procedure was performed using PFA or cryoballoon. The choice of the energy was based on patients' preference between general anesthesia (PFA) and local anesthesia (cryoballoon). The primary end point was freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 3-month blanking period. A total of 301 patients (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 220 patients) underwent a first PVI procedure performed using PFA (n=151) or cryoballoon (n=150). Complete short-term PVI was obtained in 144 of 150 patients (96%) in the cryoballoon group and in all patients of the PFA group ( P =0.01). Procedure duration was significantly longer in the cryoballoon group. Transient and persistent phrenic nerve injuries were observed in the cryoballoon group only (13/150 and 2/150, respectively). One-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in the PFA group compared with the cryoballoon group (87.9% versus 77.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.96]; P =0.037)., Conclusions: This prospective, comparative, real-life study suggested that PFA could overcome safety limitations of cryoballoon with optimal effectiveness. Randomized controlled studies are required to further investigate the potential superiority of PFA over cryoballoon.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Meneveau reports grants and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare, BMS Pfizer, and Abbott, as well as personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Terumo, outside the submitted work. Dr De Marco reports consultancies and paid expert testimonies from Abbott and Boston-Scientific. Dr Aminian is a proctor and consultant for Abbott and Boston-Scientific. Dr Chalkou reports a research grant from Janssen Switzerland (Johnson & Johnson). Dr Gräni reports funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation, InnoSuisse, CAIM foundation, GAMBIT foundation and Novartis foundation, outside of the submitted work. Dr Vranckx reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb-Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, CSL Behring, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. Dr Fischer reports grants from Medtronic and other from Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL-Behring, outside the submitted work. Dr Bedogni is a proctor for Abbott, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic; he reports consultancies from Terumo and Meril. Dr Räber reports research grants to his institution from Abbott-Vascular, Boston-Scientific, Biotronik, Heartflow, and Sanofi, Regeneron. He reports speaker/consultation fees from Abbott-Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL-Behring, Canon, Occlutech, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr Valgimigli has received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott-Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Opsens, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia-Pharmaceuticals-Ltd, Universität Basel Department Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol-Myers-Squibb-SA, iVascular, and Medscape. The other authors report no conflicts.

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.

Background: In a preliminary study in patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), the atrial thrombus exclusion (ATE) score (stroke, hypertension, heart failure, and D-dimers >270 ng/mL) was developed to rule out the diagnosis of intra-atrial thrombus, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, and to avoid performing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)., Objectives: The present study was designed to prospectively confirm the NPV of the ATE score in an independent population., Methods: Consecutive patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or left atrial tachycardia (LAT) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter study. D-dimer levels were measured within 48 hours before ablation. An ATE score of 0 was considered predictive of no thrombus. TEE was routinely performed at the beginning or just before the ablation procedure. The primary endpoint was the presence of atrial thrombus diagnosed by TEE., Results: The analysis included 3,072 patients (53.3% paroxysmal AF, 36.7% persistent AF, and 10% LAT). A thrombus was detected in 29 patients (0.94%; 95% CI: 0.63%-1.35%), all on appropriate anticoagulant therapy. An ATE score of 0 was observed in 818 patients (26.6%), and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and NPV were 93.1%, 26.8%, 1.2%, and 99.8%, respectively. Follow-up of the 2 false negative patients revealed the persistence of chronic organized thrombi., Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or LAT, the ATE score identifies a population at very low risk for atrial thrombus. In consultation with the patient, the cardiologist may consider not performing a preoperative TEE in case of an ATE score of 0., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The research leading to these results has received funding from Stago under grant agreement no. 17082903. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Heart transplantation (HT) can be proposed as a therapeutic strategy for patients with severe refractory electrical storm (ES). Data in the literature are scarce and based on case reports. We aimed at determining the characteristics and survival of patients transplanted for refractory ES., Methods and Results: Patients registered on HT waiting list during the following days after ES and eventually transplanted, from 2010 to 2021, were retrospectively included in 11 French centres. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Forty-five patients were included [82% men; 55.0 (47.8-59.3) years old; 42.2% and 26.7% non-ischaemic dilated or ischaemic cardiomyopathies, respectively]. Among them, 42 (93.3%) received amiodarone, 29 received (64.4%) beta blockers, 19 (42.2%) required deep sedation, 22 had (48.9%) mechanical circulatory support, and 9 (20.0%) had radiofrequency catheter ablation. Twenty-two patients (62%) were in cardiogenic shock. Inscription on wait list and transplantation occurred 3.0 (1.0-5.0) days and 9.0 (4.0-14.0) days after ES onset, respectively. After transplantation, 20 patients (44.4%) needed immediate haemodynamic support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In-hospital mortality rate was 28.9%. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were serum creatinine/urea levels, need for immediate post-operative ECMO support, post-operative complications, and surgical re-interventions. One-year survival was 68.9%., Conclusion: Electrical storm is a rare indication of HT but may be lifesaving in those patients presenting intractable arrhythmias despite usual care. Most patients can be safely discharged from hospital, although post-operative mortality remains substantial in this context of emergency transplantation. Larger studies are warranted to precisely determine those patients at higher risk of in-hospital mortality., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Very few data have been published on the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes associated with S-ICDs in patients with CHD., Methods: This nationwide French cohort including all patients with an S-ICD was initiated in 2020 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. Characteristics at implantation and outcomes were analyzed in patients with CHD., Results: From October 12, 2012, to December 31, 2019, among 4,924 patients receiving an S-ICD implant in 150 centers, 101 (2.1%) had CHD. Tetralogy of Fallot, univentricular heart, and dextro-transposition of the great arteries represented almost one-half of the population. Patients with CHD were significantly younger (age 37.1 ± 15.4 years vs 50.1 ± 14.9 years; P < 0.001), more frequently female (37.6% vs 23.0%; P < 0.001), more likely to receive an S-ICD for secondary prevention (72.3% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have severe systolic dysfunction of the systemic ventricle (28.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years, 16 (15.8%) patients with CHD received at least 1 appropriate shock, with all shocks successfully terminating the ventricular arrhythmia. The crude risk of appropriate S-ICD shock was twice as high in patients with CHD compared with non-CHD patients (annual incidences of 9.0% vs 4.4%; HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4); however, this association was no longer significant after propensity matching (especially considering S-ICD indication, P = 0.12). The burden of all complications (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.1; P = 0.4) and inappropriate shocks (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.9) was comparable in both groups., Conclusions: In this nationwide study, patients with CHD represented 2% of all S-ICD implantations. Our findings emphasize the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD in this particularly high-risk population. (S-ICD French Cohort Study [HONEST]; NCT05302115)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research and Paris-Sudden Death Expertise Center, the French Society of Cardiology (Electrophysiology Working Group), and the French Federation of Cardiology. The Paris Sudden Death Expertise Center activities are supported by the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), the University of Paris, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Fondation Cœur et Artères, Global Heart Watch, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Société Française de Cardiologie, and Fondation Recherche Medicale, as well as unrestricted grants from industrial partners (Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, MicroPort, ZOLL, and Schiller). Dr Waldmann has served as a consultant for Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Marijon has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, ZOLL, and Abbott. Dr Ollitrault has received consulting fees from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Champ-Rigot has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort CRM. Dr Garcia has received grants and honoraria from Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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%, CHA 2 DS 2 -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., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Reddy reports receiving consulting fees (and equity—now divested) from Farapulse Inc. and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc; unrelated to this manuscript, Dr Reddy also serves as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, Anumana, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, CardioNXT/ AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics-Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, Valcare; unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for AtriAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips, Pulse Biosciences; and has equity in Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Surecor, and Vizaramed. Dr Schmidt reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin reports research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel Support Fund. Speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS. Support for his institution’s fellowship programme from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Roten reports receiving speaker honoraria from Abbott/SJM, consulting honoraria from Medtronic, and research funding to the institution from Medtronic. Dr Neven reports speaker’s fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Metzner reports research grant and fees from Farapulse. Dr Rollin reports receiving research grant from Farapulse. Dr Lemoine reports receiving research grant from Farapulse. Dr Hansen reports receiving speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster, and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw reports receiving research grants from Medtronic and Atricure and consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer reports member of the advisory board for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Anic reports receiving consultant fees from Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., Biosense Webster, and performs contracted research for Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda reports receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke reports receiving speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik, being a consultant to Farapulse, and serving on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems reports receiving grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Gunawardene reports grants from Farapulse Inc. and Abbott. Dr Tilz reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster and speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster. Dr Heeger received travel grants and research grants by Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus and Speaker´s Honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech. Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus. He is a consultant of Medtronic, Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Scheer reports receiving an educational grant from Farapulse Inc. and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili reports receiving consultant fees and travel expenses from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific; and speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Steven reports receiving speaking fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; grants from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Sultan reports receiving lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Kautzner reports personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in scientific advisory boards, and has received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. Dr Jais reports receiving equity from Farapulse and consulting fees and grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Derval reports receiving consulting fees from Boston scientific. Dr Chun reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Neuzil reports receiving grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, DRO (NHH, 00023884). Dr Manninger reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, BMS/Pfizer and research grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Background: The benefit related to the use of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CCTA) on top of periprocedural echocardiography to plan percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures is still unclear., Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on LAAC procedural success., Methods: In the investigator-initiated SWISS-APERO (Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure) trial, patients undergoing echocardiography-guided LAAC were randomly assigned to receive the Amulet (Abbott) or Watchman 2.5/FLX (Boston Scientific) device across 8 European centers. According to the study protocol ongoing at the time of the procedure, the first operators had (CCTA unblinded group) or did not have (CCTA blinded group) access to preprocedural CCTA images. In this post hoc analysis, we compared blinded vs unblinded procedures in terms of procedural success defined as complete left atrial appendage occlusion as evaluated at the end of LAAC (short-term) or at the 45-day follow-up (long-term) without procedural-related complications., Results: Among 219 LAACs preceded by CCTA, 92 (42.1%) and 127 (57.9%) were assigned to the CCTA unblinded and blinded group, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA remained associated with a higher rate of short-term procedural success (93.5% vs 81.1%; P = 0.009; adjusted OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.05-7.29; P = 0.040) and long-term procedural success (83.7% vs 72.4%; P = 0.050; adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.03-4.35; P = 0.041)., Conclusions: In a prospective multicenter cohort of clinically indicated echocardiography-guided LAACs, unblinding of the first operators to preprocedural CCTA images was independently associated with a higher rate of both short- and long-term procedural success. Further studies are needed to better evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Aminian has been a proctor and consultant for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Meneveau has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer HealthCare, BMS-Pfizer, and Medtronic; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Siemens, and Terumo outside the submitted work. Dr De Marco has been a proctor and consultant for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Gräni has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation, InnoSuisse, CAIM, and GAMBIT foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Teiger has received personal fees from Abbott for proctoring. Dr Iriart has been a proctor and consultant for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Vranckx has received personal fees from Pfizer-Bristol Meyers Squibb Alliance, CSL Behring, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr Fischer has received research grants from Medtronic (beyond Swift, Swift Direct), Stryker, Rapid Medical, Penumbra, and Phenox (Distal); has been a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL Behring (fees paid to institution); and has participated in an advisory board for Alexion/Portola and Boehringer Ingelheim (fees paid to institution). Dr Bedogni has been a proctor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has been a consultant for Terumo and Meril. Dr Valgimigli has received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Opsens, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel Department Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, iVascular, and Medscape. Dr Räber has received research grants to the institution by Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, and Regeneron; and has received speaker/consultation fees from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, Sanofi, and Vifor. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: There are currently limited therapeutic approaches for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have developed permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to analyse the impact of ventricular irregularity on heart failure rehospitalization in patients with permanent AF and HFpEF., Methods and Results: All 24 h ambulatory Holter monitoring performed in our centre within a month after a first heart failure hospitalization were screened. Patients with HFpEF and permanent AF were included in the retrospective analysis. The following parameters of ventricular irregularity were calculated over the 24 h recording period: standard deviation of all RR intervals (SDNN), coefficient of variation of SDNN (CV-SDNN = SDNN/mean RR), root of the mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD), and percentage of consecutive RR intervals with difference over 50 ms (pNN50). The primary endpoint was rehospitalization for acute heart failure (HFrH). From 2010 to 2021, 51/216 screened patients were included. During a median follow-up of 3.13 years, 29/51 patients reached the primary endpoint. HFrH patients had higher SDNN (205 ± 65 vs. 154 ± 46 ms; P < 0.01), CV-SDNN (26 ± 8% vs. 19 ± 5%, P < 0.01), RMSSD (182 ± 47 vs. 138 ± 65 ms, P = 0.013), and pNN50 (76 ± 9 vs. 58 ± 26, P < 0.001) when compared with patients with no HFrH. In multivariate analysis, all those parameters remained significantly associated with HFrH., Conclusions: In this pilot study, we found some evidences for a deleterious impact of excessive ventricular irregularity on HFrH in AF patients with HFpEF. Those new findings could pave the way for new prognosis and therapeutic approaches in this patients' population., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice., Methods and Results: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients., Conclusions: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Medtronic supported the survey project; however, the views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not Medtronic and therefore no relevant conflicts of interest to report., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is an emerging and promising approach for physiological ventricular pacing. While data from randomized controlled trials are scarce, use of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has increased in France., Aim: To perform a national snapshot survey for cardiac electrophysiologists to evaluate adoption of CSP in France., Methods: An online survey, distributed to every senior cardiac electrophysiologist in France, was conducted in November 2022., Results: A total of 120 electrophysiologists completed the survey. Eighty-three (69%) respondents reported experience in undertaking CSP procedures and 27 (23%) were planning to start performing CSP in the coming 2 years. The implantation techniques and criteria used for successful implantation differed significantly among operators. The most frequent indications for HBP and LBBAP were high-degree atrioventricular block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% (24 and 82%, respectively) or with LVEF ≥ 40% (27 and 74%, respectively), and after failure of a coronary sinus left ventricular lead (27 and 71%, respectively). The limitations respondents most frequently perceived when performing HBP were bad sensing/pacing parameters (45%), increased procedure duration (41%) and risk of lead dislodgement (30%). The most frequently perceived limitations to performing LBBAP were absence of guidelines or consensus (31%), lack of medical training (23%) and increased procedure duration (23%)., Conclusions: Our national survey-based study supports wide adoption of CSP in France. CSP is currently used as a second-line approach for both antibradycardia and resynchronization indications, with important variations regarding implantation techniques and criteria for measuring success., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: His-bundle pacing (HBP) is an appealing alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients referred for permanent ventricular pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) because it preserves physiological ventricular activation. Only limited data regarding HBP combined with AVNA are available in the literature., Objective: The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this therapeutic approach in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmia., Methods: We prospectively included all patients who had undergone AVNA after HBP in 3 different hospitals between 2017 and 2022., Results: AVNA following HBP lead implantation was performed in 75 patients. Complete atrioventricular (AV) block was obtained in 58 patients (77%), and significant modulation of AV nodal conduction (heart rate <60 bpm) was obtained in 12 patients (16%). AVNA failure was observed in 5 patients (7%). Recording of an atrial signal by the HBP lead was more frequently observed in patients with AVNA modulation/failure than in patients with complete AV block (11/17 vs 5/58; P <.001). No lead dislodgment occurred during the AVNA procedures. Acute His-bundle (HB) capture threshold increase >1 V occurred in 11 patients (15%), with return to baseline value on day 1 in 9 patients. New York Heart Association functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.5; P <.001; and 47% ± 14% vs 60% ± 9%; P <.0001, respectively)., Conclusion: AVNA combined with HBP for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia was feasible and clinically efficient. Implanting the HB lead on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus avoiding atrial signal recording can facilitate AVNA., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Recurrences of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are mainly due to pulmonary vein reconnection. However, a growing number of patients have AF recurrences despite durable PVI. The optimal ablative strategy for these patients is unknown. We analyzed the impact of current ablation strategies in a large multicenter study., Methods: Patients undergoing a redo ablation for AF and presenting durable PVI were included. The freedom from atrial arrhythmia after pulmonary vein-based, linear-based, electrogram-based, and trigger-based ablation strategies were compared., Results: Between 2010 and 2020, 367 patients (67% men, 63±10 years, 44% paroxysmal) underwent a redo ablation for AF recurrences despite durable PVI at 39 centers. After durable PVI was confirmed, linear-based ablation was performed in 219 (60%) patients, electrogram-based ablation in 168 (45%) patients, trigger-based ablation in 101 (27%) patients, and pulmonary vein-based ablation in 56 (15%) patients. Seven patients (2%) did not undergo any additional ablation during the redo procedure. After 22±19 months of follow-up, 122 (33%) and 159 (43%) patients had a recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 12 and 24 months, respectively. No significant difference in arrhythmia-free survival was observed between the different ablation strategies. Left atrial dilatation was the only independent factor associated with arrhythmia-free survival (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.13-2.23]; P =0.006)., Conclusions: In patients with recurrent AF despite durable PVI, no ablation strategy used alone or in combination during the redo procedure appears to be superior in improving arrhythmia-free survival. Left atrial size is a significant predictor of ablation outcome in this population.

Aims: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent technique aiming at preservation of physiological ventricular electrical activation. Our goal was to assess mechanical synchrony parameters in relation to electrocardiographic features during LBBAP performed in routine practice., Methods and Results: From June 2020 to August 2021, all patients of our institution with permanent pacemaker implantation indication were eligible for LBBAP. A 'qR' pattern in V1 and a delay from pacing spike to the peak of the R-wave in V6 < 80 ms defined a successful LBBAP. Electrocardiogram and echocardiography were performed during spontaneous rhythm and LBBAP: left ventricular mechanical synchrony (LVMS) parameters using 2D Speckle tracking and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were collected. LBBAP was attempted with success in 134/163 patients (82.2%). During LBBAP, the mean QRS width was 104 ± 12 ms. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 47), LBBAP provided a significant decrease of QRS width from 139 ± 16 to 105 ± 12 ms (P < 0.001) with reduction of LVMS (53 ± 21 vs. 90 ± 46 ms, P = 0.009), and IVMD (14 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 18 ms, P < 0.001). In patients with right bundle branch block (n = 38), LBBAP led to a significant decrease of QRS width from 134 ± 14 to 106 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001) with no effect on LVMS and a reduction of IVMD (17 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 16 ms, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: LBBAP in routine practice preserved intra-ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with narrow and RBBB QRS and improved asynchrony parameters in patients with LBBB., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Dr Anselme is consultant for and has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Microport CRM., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In repaired tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), little is known about characteristics of patients with rapid ventricular tachycardia (VT). Also, whether patients with a first episode of nonrapid VT may subsequently develop rapid VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF) has not been addressed., Objectives: The objectives of this study were to compare patients with rapid VT/VF with those with nonrapid VT and to assess the evolution of VT cycle lengths (VTCLs) overtime., Methods: Data were analyzed from a nationwide registry including all patients with TOF and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) since 2000. Patients with ≥1 VT episode with VTCL ≤250 ms (240 beats/min) formed the rapid VT/VF group., Results: Of 144 patients (mean age 42.0 ± 12.7 years; 104 [72%] men), 61 (42%) had at least 1 VT/VF episode, including 28 patients with rapid VT/VF (46%), during a median follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range 2.2-10.3 years). Compared with patients in the nonrapid VT group, those in the rapid VT/VF group were significantly younger at ICD implantation (35.2 ± 12.6 years vs 41.5 ± 11.2 years; P = .04), had more frequently a history of cardiac arrest (8 [29%] vs 2 [6%]; P = .02), less frequently a history of atrial arrhythmia (11 [42%] vs 22 [69%]; P = .004), and higher right ventricular ejection fraction (43.3% ± 10.3% vs 36.6% ± 11.2%; P = .04). The median VTCL of VT/VF episodes was 325 ms (interquartile range 235-429 ms). None of the patients with a first documented nonrapid VT episode had rapid VT/VF during follow-up., Conclusion: Patients with TOF and rapid VT/VF had distinct clinical characteristics. The relatively low variation of VTCL over time suggests a room for catheter ablation without a backup ICD in selected patients with well-tolerated VT., (Copyright © 2022 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Catheter ablation is a first-line treatment for symptomatic right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). There is evidence of displacement of the ablation target site during PVCs relative to the location in sinus rhythm (SR)., Aim: To analyse the extent of displacement induced by RVOT PVCs and its effect on the ablation sites and the mid-term efficacy of ablation., Methods: In this multicentre French study, we retrospectively included 18 consecutive adults referred for ablation of RVOT PVCs using a three-dimensional (3D) mapping system. PVC activation maps were performed conventionally (initial map), then each PVC activation point was manually reannotated considering the 3D location on a previous SR beat (corrected map). The ablation-site locations on the initial or the corrected area, including the 10 best activation points, were analysed. Mid-term efficacy was evaluated., Results: The direction of map shift during PVCs relative to the map in SR occurred along a vertical axis in 16 of 18 patients. The mean activation-point displacement for each of the 18 mapped chambers was 5.6±2.2mm. Mid-term recurrence of RVOT PVCs occurred in 5 (28%) patients. In all patients with recurrences, no significant ablation lesion was located on the corrected (true) site of origin., Conclusions: RVOT PVCs induce a vertical anatomical shift that can mislead physicians about the true location of the arrhythmia's site of origin. Our study highlights the association between mid-term PVC recurrence and the absence of spatial overlap between ablation points and the corrected site of origin., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Aims: Sudden cardiac arrest remains a major complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is frequently related to ventricular fibrillation (VF). Incidence and impact of VF among patients hospitalized for AMI were evaluated., Methods and Results: Data from the FAST-MI programme consisting of 5 French nationwide prospective cohort studies between 1995 and 2015 were analysed, totally including 14 423 patients with AMI (66 ± 14 years, 72% males, 59% ST-elevation myocardial infarction). Overall, proportion of patients presenting in-hospital VF decreased from 3.9% in 1995 to 1.8% in 2015 (P < 0.001). One-year mortality decreased from 60.7% to 24.6% (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients who did not develop VF, the over-risk of 1-year mortality associated with VF was stable over time [hazard ratio (HR) 6.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.03-9.14 in 1995 and HR 6.64, 95% CI 4.20-10.49 in 2015, P = 0.52]. This increased mortality in the VF group was mainly related to fatal events occurring prior to hospital discharge, representing 86.2% of 1-year mortality, despite the very low rate of implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the VF group (2.6%)., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that in-hospital VF incidence and mortality in the setting of AMI have significantly decreased over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, VF remained steadily associated with approximately a 10-fold increased relative risk of in-hospital mortality, without an impact on post-discharge mortality. Beyond long-term cardiac defibrillation strategy, these results emphasize the need to identify in-hospital interventions to further reduce mortality in VF patients., Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00673036, NCT01237418, NCT02566200., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E.M. consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Zoll. Rodrigue Garcia has received grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Mivroport, Abbott, consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, honoraria from Zoll, Abbott and support for attending meetings from Medtronic, Microport, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, participated on a data safety monitoring board with Microport. Eloi Marijon has received grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll, Abbott, Microport, Biotronik, consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Zoll, Boston Scientific. Nicole Karam has received consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards, support for attending meetings from Abbott and Edwards. Laure Champ-Rigot has received consulting fees from Microport, honoraria from Boston Scientific, Medtronic and support for attending meetings from Boston Scientific. Jean Ferrières has received honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Servier. François Schiele has received grants from Amgen, Sanofi, Organon, Servier, Novonordisk and bayer, consulting fees from Servier, Novonordisk, Bayer and Sanofi, honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, Recordati, Bayer, Organon and Mylan. Tabassome Simon has received grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, honoraria from Novartis and Servier and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring board with Ablative Solutions, Air Liquide, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, 4Living Biotech. The other authors have nothing to declare., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Women with congenital heart disease at high risk for sudden cardiac death have been poorly studied thus far., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess sex-related differences in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)., Methods: Data were analyzed from the DAI-T4F (French National Registry of Patients With Tetralogy of Fallot and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator) cohort study, which has prospectively enrolled all patients with TOF with ICDs in France since 2010. Clinical events were centrally adjudicated by a blinded committee., Results: A total of 165 patients (mean age 42.2 ± 13.3 years) were enrolled from 40 centers, including 49 women (29.7%). Among the 9,692 patients with TOF recorded in the national database, the proportion of women with ICDs was estimated to be 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8%-1.5%) vs 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8%-2.6%) in men (P &lt; 0.001). The clinical profiles of patients at implantation, including the number of risk factors for ventricular arrhythmias, were similar between women and men. During a median follow-up period of 6.8 years (IQR: 2.5-11.4 years), 78 patients (47.3%) received at least 1 appropriate ICD therapy, without significant difference in annual incidences between women (12.1%) and men (9.9%) (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.76-1.97; P = 0.40). The risk for overall ICD-related complications was similar in women and men (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.81-2.19; P = 0.30), with 24 women (49.0%) experiencing at least 1 complication., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that women with TOF at high risk for sudden cardiac death have similar benefit/risk balance from ICD therapy compared with men. Whether ICD therapy is equally offered to at-risk women vs men warrants further evaluation in TOF as well as in other congenital heart disease populations. (French National Registry of Patients With Tetralogy of Fallot and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator [DAI-T4F]; NCT03837574)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, and Société Française de Cardiologie. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Little data are available in women presenting with ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We assessed frequency, predictors of VF, and outcomes, with a special focus on women compared with men. Methods and Results Data were analyzed from the FAST-MI (French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) program, which prospectively included 14 406 patients admitted to French cardiac intensive care units ≤48 hours from AMI onset between 1995 and 2015 (mean age, 66±14 years; 72% men; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 52±12%; 59% with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction). A total of 359 patients developed VF during AMI, including 81 women (2.0% of 4091 women) and 278 men (2.7% of 10 315 men, P =0.02). ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 2.29 [95% CI, 1.75-2.99]; P <0.001) was independently associated with the onset of VF during AMI. In contrast, female sex (OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]; P =0.02), hypertension (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.94]; P =0.01), and prior myocardial infarction (OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50-0.96]; P =0.03) were protective factors. Women were less likely to have cardiac intervention than men (percutaneous coronary intervention during hospitalization 48.1% versus 66.9%, respectively; P =0.04) with a higher 1-year mortality in women compared with men (50.6% versus 37.4%, respectively; P =0.03), including increased in-hospital mortality (42.0% versus 32.7%, respectively; P =0.12). After adjustment, female sex was no longer associated with a worse 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75-1.61]; P =0.63). Conclusions Women have lower risk of developing VF during AMI compared with men. However, they are less likely to receive cardiac interventions than men, possibly contributing to missed opportunities of improved outcomes.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: V.Y.R. reports receiving consulting fees and equity (stock) from Farapulse Inc. and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc.; he also has additional disclosures unrelated to this manuscript that are listed in the Supplementary material online. B.S. reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. T.R. reports research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund. Speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS. Support for his institution’s fellowship programme from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. L.R. reports receiving speaker honoraria from Abbott/SJM and consulting honoraria from Medtronic. K.N. reports speaker’s Fees from Farapulse, Inc. A.M. reports research grant and fees from Farapulse. A.R. reports receiving research grant from Farapulse. J.H. reports receiving speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Y.B.: reports receiving Research grant from Medtronic and Atricure and consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific. P.S. reports member of the advisory board for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. C.S. reports receiving modest honoraria from Medtronic. A.A. reports receiving consultant fees from Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., Biosense Webster, and performs contracted research for Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., Biosense Webster. F.A. reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Microport CRM. S.B. reports receiving consulting fees for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. T.D. reports receiving speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott and Biotronik, being a consultant to Farapulse, and serving on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. S.W. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, Farapulse Inc. M.G. reports grant from Farapulse Inc. and Abbott. R.T. reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbot Medical, Biotronik, and speakers honorarium from Boston Scientific, Abbot Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster. B.K. reports receiving Travel and Congress Sponsoring from Biotronik, Abbott, Impulse Dynamics, DGK AG EP, EHRA, Pfizer; she also received fellowship sponsoring from Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and Lecture Honorary from Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics, C.T.I. GmbH, Doctrina Med. D.S. reports receiving an educational grant from Farapulse Inc., and is a consultant For Boston Scientific Inc. R.W. reports receiving consultant fees and travel expenses from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific; and speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. D.S. reports receiving speaking fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; grant from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. A.S. reports receiving lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. J.K. reports personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in scientific advisory boards, and has received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. P.J. reports receiving equity from Farapulse and consulting fees and grant from Boston Scientific. N.D. reports receiving consulting fees from Boston scientific. J.C. reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. P.N. reports receiving grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, DRO (NHH, 00023884). All the remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Recent developments in imaging, mapping, and ablation techniques have shown that the epicardial region of the heart is a key player in the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmic events in several cardiac diseases, such as Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, or dilated cardiomyopathy. At the atrial level as well, the epicardial region has emerged as an important determinant of the substrate of atrial fibrillation, pointing to common underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Alteration in the gradient of repolarization between myocardial layers favouring the occurrence of re-entry circuits has largely been described. The fibro-fatty infiltration of the subepicardium is another shared substrate between ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. Recent data have emphasized the role of the epicardial reactivation in the formation of this arrhythmogenic substrate. There are new evidences supporting this structural remodelling process to be regulated by the recruitment of epicardial progenitor cells that can differentiate into adipocytes or fibroblasts under various stimuli. In addition, immune-inflammatory processes can also contribute to fibrosis of the subepicardial layer. A better understanding of such 'electrical fragility' of the epicardial area will open perspectives for novel biomarkers and therapeutic strategies. In this review article, a pathophysiological scheme of epicardial-driven arrhythmias will be proposed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: Temporary circulatory support (TCS) as a bridge-to-left ventricular assist device (BTL) in cardiogenic shock patients has been increasing, but limited data exists on this BTL strategy. We aimed at analyzing the outcome of BTL patients in a population of cardiogenic shock patients compared with those without TCS at the time of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery and identify predictors of postoperative mortality in this specific population., Design: A multicenter retrospective observational study conducted in 19 centers from 2006 to 2016., Setting: Nineteen French centers., Patients: A total of 329 cardiogenic shock patients at the time of LVAD implantation were analyzed. Patients were divided in three groups: those under TCS at the time of LVAD implantation (n = 173), those with TCS removal before LVAD surgery (n = 24), and those who did not undergo a bridging strategy (n = 152). Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Among the BTL group, 68 (39.3%), 18 (10.4%), and 15 (8.7%) patients were under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and IABP support alone, and 72 patients (20.6%) were under multiple TCS support. BTL patients presented similar 30 days survival compared with the TCS removal and non-BTL groups. However, BTL group had a significantly longer ICU duration stay, with two-fold duration of mechanical ventilation time, but the three groups experienced similar postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors of mortality in the BTL group: combined surgery with LVAD, body mass index (BMI), and heart failure (HF) duration. BTL strategy was not an independent predictor of mortality in cardiogenic shock patients who underwent LVAD., Conclusions: BTL strategy is not associated with a lower survival among cardiogenic shock patients with LVAD implantation. Predictors of mortality are combined surgery with LVAD, higher BMI, and HF duration., Competing Interests: Drs. Delmas and Gaudard received funding from Abiomed. Drs. Delmas and Blangy received funding from Abbott. Dr. Blangy received funding from Boston and Zoll. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: No study has so far compared Amulet with the new Watchman FLX in terms of residual left atrial appendage (LAA) patency or clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure., Methods: In the investigator-initiated SWISS APERO trial (Comparison of Amulet Versus Watchman/FLX Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure), patients undergoing LAA closure were randomly assigned (1:1) open label to receive Amulet or Watchman 2.5 or FLX (Watchman) across 8 European centers. The primary end point was the composite of justified crossover to a nonrandomized device during LAA closure procedure or residual LAA patency detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days. The secondary end points included procedural complications, device-related thrombus, peridevice leak at transesophageal echocardiography, and clinical outcomes at 45 days., Results: Between June 2018 and May 2021, 221 patients were randomly assigned to Amulet (111 [50.2%]) or Watchman (110 [49.8%]), of whom 25 (22.7%) patients included before October 2019 received Watchman 2.5, and 85 (77.3%) patients received Watchman FLX. The primary end point was assessable in 205 (92.8%) patients and occurred in 71 (67.6%) patients receiving Amulet and 70 (70.0%) patients receiving Watchman, respectively (risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.80-1.16]; P =0.713). A single justified crossover occurred in a patient with Amulet who fulfilled LAA patency criteria at 45-day CCTA. Major procedure-related complications occurred more frequently in the Amulet group (9.0% versus 2.7%; P =0.047) because of more frequent bleeding (7.2% versus 1.8%). At 45 days, the peridevice leak rate at transesophageal echocardiography was higher with Watchman than with Amulet (27.5% versus 13.7%, P =0.020), albeit none was major (ie, >5 mm), whereas device-related thrombus was detected in 1 (0.9%) patient with Amulet and 3 (3.0%) patients with Watchman at CCTA and in 2 (2.1%) and 5 (5.5%) patients at transesophageal echocardiography, respectively. Clinical outcomes at 45 days did not differ between the groups., Conclusions: Amulet was not associated with a lower rate of the composite of crossover or residual LAA patency compared with Watchman at 45-day CCTA. Amulet, however, was associated with lower peridevice leak rates at transesophageal echocardiography, higher procedural complications, and similar clinical outcomes at 45 days compared with Watchman. The clinical relevance of CCTA-detected LAA patency requires further investigation., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03399851.

The clinical efficacy of the inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) as an upstream therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) prevention is controversial. No study has itemized so far the role of RAAS inhibitors in AF prevention after atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. This trial aims to investigate the effect of ramipril compared with placebo on AF occurrence in patients hospitalized for AFL ablation without structural heart disease. The Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation by Inhibition Conversion Enzyme (ICE) After Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Flutter (PREFACE) trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial depicting the AF occurrence during a 12-month follow-up as the primary end point. A total of 198 patients hospitalized for AFL ablation were enrolled in the trial and randomized to placebo or ramipril 5 mg/day. Patients were followed up during 1 year after AFL ablation using 1-week Holter electrocardiogram at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The intention-to-treat population encompassed 97 patients in the ramipril group and 101 patients in the placebo group. The primary end point, such as AF occurrence during the 1-year follow-up, was not different between the 2 groups (p = 0.96). Secondary end points, including the occurrence of supraventricular arrhythmia (p = 0.50), heart failure, stroke, and death, were not different between the 2 groups. Safety outcome parameters, including serious adverse events leading to treatment disruption (p = 0.10), hypotension, impairment of renal function, and elevated serum potassium level, also were not different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, RAAS inhibition using ramipril does not reduce AF occurrence in patients facing AFL ablation during the 1-year follow-up., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) as a first-line rhythm control strategy is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence; the impact of first-line CBA on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms has not been well characterized., Methods: Patients aged 18 to 75 with symptomatic paroxysmal AF naïve to rhythm control therapy were randomized (1:1) to CBA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III). Symptoms and QoL were assessed at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the EHRA classification and Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) and SF-36v2 questionnaires. Symptomatic palpitations were evaluated via patient diary., Results: Overall, 107 patients were randomized to CBA and 111 to AAD; crossovers occurred in 9%. Larger improvements in the AFEQT summary, subscale and treatment satisfaction scores were observed at 12 months with CBA vs AAD (all P <0.05). At 12 months, the mean adjusted difference in the AFEQT summary score was 9.9 points higher in the CBA group (95% CI: 5.5 -14.2, P <0.001). Clinically important improvements in the SF-36 physical and mental component scores were observed at 12 months in both groups, with no significant between group differences at this timepoint. In the CBA vs AAD group, larger improvements in EHRA class were observed at 6, 9 and 12 months (P <0.05) and the incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower (4.6 vs 15.2 days/year post-blanking; IRR: 0.30, P <0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with symptomatic AF, first-line CBA was superior to AAD for improving AF-specific QoL and symptoms., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01803438., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: Despite regularly updated guidelines, there is still a delay in referral of advanced heart failure patients to mechanical circulatory support and transplant centres. We aimed to analyse characteristics and outcome of non-inotrope-dependent patients implanted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD)., Methods and Results: The ASSIST-ICD registry collected LVAD data in 19 centres in France between February 2006 and December 2016. We used data of patients in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Classes 4-7. The primary endpoint was survival analysis. Predictors of mortality were searched with multivariable analyses. A total of 303 patients (mean age 61.0 ± 9.9 years, male sex 86.8%) were included in the present analysis. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy was the leading heart failure aetiology (64%), and bridge to transplantation was the main implantation strategy (56.1%). The overall likelihood of being alive while on LVAD support or having a transplant at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 66%, 61.7%, 58.7%, and 55.1%, respectively. Age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.05; P = 0.02], a concomitant procedure (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.52-3.53; P < 0.0001), and temporary mechanical right ventricular support during LVAD implantation (HR 2.94, 95% CI 1.49-5.77; P = 0.002) were the only independent variables associated with mortality. Heart failure medications before or after LVAD implantation were not associated with survival., Conclusion: Ambulatory heart failure patients displayed unsatisfactory survival rates after LVAD implantation. A better selection of patients who can benefit from LVAD may help improving outcomes., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Although cryoenergy safety profile is appropriate for the ablation of arrhythmogenic foci near the conduction system, mapping using the cryoablation catheter is of limited precision. Combining the safety of cryoenergy and the high precision of a 3D mapping system therefore appears the most appropriate set-up for ablation in the vicinity of the His bundle., Methods and Results: A 29-year-old woman with a 3-year history of increasing shortness of breath and palpitations refractory to medical treatment was sent to the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory for catheter ablation. Surface electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm and frequent ectopic beats with narrow QRS complexes similar to those of the sinus beats. The left ventricular ejection fraction was impaired (38%) with no other aetiology found, apart from frequent ectopies. Detailed intracardiac mapping, using a 3D electroanatomical system, revealed that the ectopy originated from the distal His bundle, which was indicated by both antegrade and reversed His bundle activation sequence during ectopy compared to that during sinus rhythm. Due to the proximity of the conduction system, cryoenergy rather than radiofrequency was chosen to target this Hisian ectopy. A special set-up was made in order to allow the cryoablation catheter to be visualized into the 3D mapping system. Cryoenergy delivered to the site of earliest Hisian ectopy activation completely abolished it., Conclusion: Such a combined approach may help to improve the therapeutic strategy for ablation procedures with a high risk of injury to the conduction system. It could notably be extended to the ablation of para-Hisian ectopy or accessory pathways., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) on ventricular arrhythmias burden in a population of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) patients with continuous cardiac monitoring by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)., Background: Sudden cardiac death is a major cause of death in TOF, and right ventricular overload is commonly considered to be a potential trigger for ventricular arrhythmias., Methods: Data were analyzed from a nationwide French ongoing study (DAI-T4F) including all TOF patients with an ICD since 2000. Survival data with recurrent events were used to compare the burden of appropriate ICD therapies before and after PVR in patients who underwent PVR over the study period., Results: A total of 165 patients (mean age 42.2 ± 13.3 years, 70.1% male) were included from 40 centers. Over a median follow-up period of 6.8 (interquartile range: 2.5 to 11.4) years, 26 patients (15.8%) underwent PVR. Among those patients, 18 (69.2%) experienced at least 1 appropriate ICD therapy. When considering all ICD therapies delivered before (n = 62) and after (n = 16) PVR, the burden of appropriate ICD therapies was significantly lower after PVR (HR: 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08 to 0.56; p = 0.002). Respective appropriate ICD therapies rates per 100 person-years were 44.0 (95% CI: 35.7 to 52.5) before and 13.2 (95% CI: 7.7 to 20.5) after PVR (p < 0.001). In the overall cohort, PVR before ICD implantation was also independently associated with a lower risk of appropriate ICD therapy in primary prevention patients (HR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.89]; p = 0.031)., Conclusions: In this cohort of high-risk TOF patients implanted with an ICD, the burden of appropriate ICD therapies was significantly reduced after PVR. While optimal indications and timing for PVR are debated, these findings suggest the importance of considering ventricular arrhythmias in the overall decision-making process. (French National Registry of Patients With Tetralogy of Fallot and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator [DAI-T4F]; NCT03837574)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The Paris-Sudden Death Expertise Center activities are supported by the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), University of Paris, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Fondation Coeur et Artères, Global Heart Watch, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Société Française de Cardiologie, Fondation Recherche Medicale, as well as unrestricted grants from industrial partners (Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, MicroPort, Schiller and Zoll). SDEC Executive Committee is part of the ESCAPE-NET project (Horizon2020 programme). The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Residual or newly acquired leaks are routinely appraised after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The Watchman and the Amulet are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC but no randomized study has so far assessed their comparative leak rates after intervention. The "Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet vs Watchman devices in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure" (Swiss-Apero, clinicaltrial.gov NCT03399851) is an academic-sponsored multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet versus Watchman/FLX devices among patients undergoing a clinically indicated LAAC. The study is designed to assess the superiority of Amulet vs. Watchman/FLX in terms of leaks detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days (primary endpoint) and 13 months (secondary endpoint) after intervention by an imaging Core Laboratory. The Swiss-Apero study is the first randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet and Watchman/FLX with respect to the prevalence of post-procedural leak as assessed with CCTA., (© 2020. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Although less common, typical atrial flutter shares similar pathophysiological roots with atrial fibrillation. Following successful cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation using radiofrequency, many patients, however, develop atrial fibrillation in the mid-to-long-term. This study sought to assess whether pulmonary vein isolation conducted at the same time as cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation would significantly modify the atrial fibrillation burden upon follow-up in patients suffering from typical atrial flutter., Methods: This was a multicenter randomized controlled study involving typical atrial flutter patients with history of non-predominant atrial fibrillation (1 atrial fibrillation episode only, in 67% of population) who were scheduled for cavo-tricuspid isthmus radiofrequency ablation. Patients were randomly assigned to either undergo cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation alone or cavo-tricuspid isthmus plus pulmonary vein isolation (CTI+). Pulmonary vein isolation was performed using cryoballoon technology. An outpatient consultation with ECG and 1-week Holter monitoring was performed at 3, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postprocedure. The primary endpoint was atrial fibrillation recurrences lasting more than 30 s at 2 years postablation., Results: Of the patients enrolled, 36 were included in each group. At 2-year follow-up, the atrial fibrillation recurrence rate was significantly higher in the CTI vs CTI+group (25/36, 69% vs. 12/36, 33% respectively; P  < .001), with similar typical atrial flutter recurrence rates. There were no differences in undesirable events, except for transient phrenic nerve palsy reported from three CTI+patients (8.3%)., Conclusion: Pulmonary vein isolation using cryoballoon technology was proven to significantly reduce the atrial fibrillation incidence at 2 years postcavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation., Competing Interests: FA is consultant for and received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. AS received honoraria from Microport CRM. NC is consultant for and received lecture fees from Medtronic. PD received research grants and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Microport CRM, and Medtronic. SB is consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport CRM, and Zoll. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. The protocol for this research has been approved by a suitable constituted Ethics Committee of the institution under the approval number 2011‐A00806‐35, on July 21, 2011 and it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The ClinicalTrial identifier of this study is NCT01521988, (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.)

Aims: Treatment guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suggest that patients should be managed with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) before undergoing catheter ablation (CA). This study evaluated whether pulmonary vein isolation employing cryoballoon CA is superior to AAD therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence in rhythm control naive patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF)., Methods and Results: A total of 218 treatment naive patients with symptomatic PAF were randomized (1 : 1) to cryoballoon CA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III) and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was ≥1 episode of recurrent AA (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) >30 s after a prespecified 90-day blanking period. Secondary endpoints included the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) and recurrence of symptomatic palpitations (evaluated via patient diaries). Freedom from AA was achieved in 82.2% of subjects in the cryoballoon arm and 67.6% of subjects in the AAD arm (HR = 0.48, P = 0.01). There were no group differences in the time-to-first (HR = 0.76, P = 0.28) or overall incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.79, P = 0.28] of SAEs. The incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower in the cryoballoon (7.61 days/year) compared with the AAD arm (18.96 days/year; IRR = 0.40, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Cryoballoon CA was superior to AAD therapy, significantly reducing AA recurrence in treatment naive patients with PAF. Additionally, cryoballoon CA was associated with lower symptom recurrence and a similar rate of SAEs compared with AAD therapy., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)