Search

Background: Hybrid-convergent radiofrequency (RF) ablation targeting pulmonary veins (PVs) and left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) has shown better arrhythmic outcomes than an endocardial-only RF strategy, despite higher rates of complications. Comparisons with extensive pulsed field ablation (PFA) are currently lacking., Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the hybrid-convergent RF vs PFA of PVs and LAPW in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF)., Methods: Ninety-three consecutive LSPAF patients, treated with 2-step hybrid-convergent RF ablation (hybrid group, n = 49) or with PFA of PVs and LAPW (PFA group, n = 44) were enrolled. Primary efficacy endpoint was defined as any atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATA) recurrence after the 3-month blanking period, over a follow-up time of 12 months. Periprocedural adverse events and late complications during follow-up were deemed primary safety outcomes., Results: The hybrid and PFA groups had similar baseline characteristics; mean age was hybrid 63.8 ± 10.6 years vs PFA 66.0 ± 7.4 years; P = 0.105. PV and LAPW ablation were acutely successful in all patients. Step 1 hybrid-epicardial procedures were longer than PFA (166 [Q1-Q3: 140-205] minutes vs 107.5 [Q1-Q3: 82.5-12] minutes; P < 0.01). At 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in ATA recurrences between groups (hybrid 36.7% vs PFA 40.9%; P = 0.680; log-rank at survival analysis P = 0.539). After adjusting for confounders, a larger left atrial volume and recurrences during the blanking-period were predictors of ATA recurrences after ablation, regardless of procedural technique employed. PFA showed a better safety profile with a lower rate of major periprocedural complications compared with hybrid ablation (12% vs 0%; P = 0.028)., Conclusions: Hybrid-convergent and PFA share comparable arrhythmic outcomes in LSPAF, but hybrid-convergent ablation carries higher periprocedural risks., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Tondo serves a member of scientific advisory boards for Medtronic Inc and Boston Scientific; and receives lecture/proctoring fees from Abbott Medical, AtriCure, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic 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.)

Background: Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an inherited heart disease characterized by fibro-fatty replacement of myocardium. Limited data is available concerning cardioembolic stroke. This study sought to determine the occurrence of cardioembolic ischemic events (CIEs) in ACM patients and to identify clinical and imaging predictors of CIEs., Methods: Every consecutive ACM patient was enrolled. ECG, Holter monitoring or implantable cardiac devices were used to detect atrial arrhythmias (AAs). CIEs were defined according to TOAST classification., Results: In our cohort of 111 patients, CIEs were observed in eleven (10%) over a 12.9-year median follow-up, with an incidence of 7.9 event/1000 patient-year (HR 4.12 compared to general population). Mean age at the event was 42 ± 9 years. Female sex (p = 0.03), T-wave inversion (p = 0.03), RVOT dilatation (p = 0.006) and lower LVEF (p = 0.006) were associated with CIEs. Among patients with AAs (23/111, 20.7%), 5 (21.7%) experienced CIEs. CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc did not prove useful to define patients at higher risk of CIEs (p = 0.098). 60% of stroke suffering patients had a pre-event score between 0 and 1 (if female)., Conclusions: In ACM patients, CIEs are much more common than in general population and present a high burden at younger age. AAs relate to less than half of these events. In AAs patients, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc is not useful to stratify those requiring oral anticoagulation. As a hypothesis-generating study, our research proposes the role of atrial myopathy, irrespective of AAs, as a pivotal factor in thrombogenesis risk, pointing out a definite unmet need in ACM therapeutic algorithm., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)