Search

Background: The role of catheter ablation in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) demonstrates a favorable clinical profile, however, data on elderly patients are lacking., Aims: We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of PFA in the elderly, using data from the EU-PORIA registry., Methods: Periprocedural complications and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of AF ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter (Farapulse™) were compared between patients older than 80 years old and their younger counterparts, across seven European centers., Results: Among the 1233 patients in the registry, 88 (7.1 %) were older than 80 years. Elderly patients were more often females (51.1 % vs 37.8 %, p = 0.01) with a lower median BMI (26.0, IQR:23.5-29.2 vs 26.9, IQR:24.4-30.4 kg/m 2 , p = 0.02), a higher median CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (4, IQR:3-5 vs 2, IQR:1-3, p < 0.001) and a higher incidence of hypertension (73.9 % vs 52.7 %, p < 0.001). In both groups, most patients had paroxysmal AF (58.0 % vs 60.3 %, p = 0.65). Ablation in the elderly was more frequently performed with minimally interrupted anticoagulation (87.5 % vs 59.7 %, p < 0.001). Despite comparable rates of overall complications (5.7 % vs 3.5 %, p = 0.29), elderly patients had a higher incidence of stroke (2.3 % vs 0.3 %, p = 0.04). At 12 months, major adverse clinical events (4.5 % vs. 2.1 %, p = 0.12) and arrhythmia-free survival (70 % vs 74 %, p = 0.69) were comparable in both groups. None of the recurrence-free elderly patients were on antiarrhythmic drugs at the end of follow-up., Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, the efficacy of PFA for AF was similar in elderly and younger patients. Despite comparable complication rates, a higher incidence of stroke was observed in the elderly., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest R.M.: none. V.S.: none. B.S. is a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. S.B. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Biosense Webster. K.R.J.C. is a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. T.R. has received research grants from the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund, all for work outside the submitted study. He has received speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Farapulse, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS, all for work outside the submitted study. He has received support for his institution's fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic for work outside the submitted study. T.K.: none. K.N. is a consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Field Medical, and LifeTech Scientific. N.R.: consultant for Boston Scientific. J.H.: speakers fees from Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster. M.H.R.: none. P.v.d.V.: none. Y.B. has received research grants from Medtronic and Atricure. He has received speaker/consulting honoraria from Abbott/SJM and Boston-Scientific, all for work outside the submitted study. S.J.: none. B.A.M.: none. S.B. is consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, and Zoll., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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 (PFA) is a novel nonthermal ablation technology with high procedural safety and efficiency for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Premarket data showed high PVI durability during mandatory remapping studies. Data on lesion durability in real-world patients with clinically indicated redo procedures are scarce., Objectives: This study sought to report PVI durability rates in patients undergoing a clinically indicated redo procedure after an index PVI using PFA., Methods: Patients from 7 European centers undergoing an index PVI using PFA were included the EU-PORIA (European Real-world Outcomes With Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation) registry. In patients with subsequent left atrial redo procedures due to arrhythmia recurrence, 3-dimensional electroanatomical maps were acquired. PVI durability was assessed on a per-vein and per-patient level, and sites of reconnections and predictors of lesion durability were identified., Results: Of 1,184 patients (62% paroxysmal atrial fibrillation) undergoing an index PVI using PFA, 272 (23%) had an arrhythmia recurrence. Of these, 144 (53%) underwent a left atrial redo procedure a median of 7 (Q1-Q3: 5-10) months after the first ablation. Three-dimensional electroanatomical maps identified 404 of 567 pulmonary veins (71%) with durable isolation. In 54 patients (38%), all pulmonary veins were durably isolated. Prior operator experience with cryoballoon ablation was associated with a higher PVI durability compared to operators with only point-by-point radiofrequency experience (76% vs 60%; P < 0.001). Neither the operators' cumulative experience in atrial fibrillation ablation (≤5 vs >5 years) nor the size of the PFA device used (31 mm vs 35 mm) had an impact on subsequent lesion durability (both P > 0.50)., Conclusions: In 144 patients with arrhythmia recurrence after PFA PVI, durable isolation was observed in 71% of the pulmonary veins during the redo procedure, and 38% of all patients showed durable isolation of all veins., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The EU-PORIA registry was supported by a research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Bordignon has received honoraria from Medtronic and Biosense Webster. Dr Neven has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Field Medical, and LifeTech Scientific. Dr Blaauw has received research grants from Medtronic and Atricure; has received speaker/consulting fees from Abbott/St Jude Medical and Boston-Scientific, all for work outside the submitted study. Dr Hansen has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster. Dr Füting has received an educational grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Roten has received research grants from Medtronic and speaker/consulting fees from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Reinsch has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Boveda has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, and Zoll. Drs Albrecht and Schneider are salaried employees of Boston Scientific. Dr Chun has served as a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr Schmidt has served as a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr Reichlin has received research grants from the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation and the sitem insel support fund, all for work outside the submitted study; has received speaker/consulting fees or travel support from Abbott/St Jude Medical, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/St Jude Medical, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 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.)

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a well-established strategy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Despite randomized controlled trials and real-world data showing the promise of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) for this treatment, long-term efficacy and safety data demonstrating single-procedure outcomes off antiarrhythmic drugs remain limited. The aim of the FARA-Freedom Study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of PFA using the pentaspline catheter for PAF., Methods and Results: FARA-Freedom, a prospective, non-randomized, multicentre study, enrolled patients with PAF undergoing de novo PVI with PFA, who were followed for 12 months with weekly transtelephonic monitoring and a 72-h Holter ECG at 6 and 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of device- or procedure-related serious adverse events out to 7 days post-ablation and PV stenosis or atrioesophageal (AE) fistula out to 12 months. Treatment success is a composite of acute PVI and chronic success, which includes freedom from any documented atrial tachyarrhythmia longer than 30 s, use of antiarrhythmic drugs or cardioversion after a 3-month blanking period, or use of amiodarone or repeat ablation at any time. The study enrolled 179 PAF patients (62 ± 10 years, 39% female) at 13 centres. At the index procedure, all PVs were successfully isolated with the pentaspline PFA catheter. Procedure and left atrial dwell times, with a 20-min waiting period, were 71.9 ± 17.6 and 41.0 ± 13.3 min, respectively. Fluoroscopy time was 11.5 ± 7.4 min. Notably, monitoring compliance was high, with 88.4 and 90.3% with weekly events and 72-h Holter monitors, respectively. Freedom from the composite primary effectiveness endpoint was 66.6%, and 41 patients had atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, mostly recurrent atrial fibrillation (31 patients). The composite safety endpoint occurred in two patients (1.1%), one tamponade and one transient ischaemic attack. There was no coronary spasm, PV stenosis, or AE fistula. There were four cases of transient phrenic nerve palsy, but all resolved during the index procedure., Conclusion: In this prospective, non-randomized, multicentre study, PVI using a pentaspline PFA catheter was effective in treating PAF patients despite rigourous endpoint definitions and high monitoring compliance and demonstrated favourable safety., Registration: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT05072964 (sponsor: Boston Scientific Corporation)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: We have read the journal’s policy, and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Authors have served as consultants and received lecture honoraria or research grants from multiple industry partners, including Boston Scientific (the trial sponsor), Biosense Webster, Medtronic, Abbott, Lifetech, Bayer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Additionally, the following are employees of the sponsor: A.V., A.B.A., M.J., and J.D.R., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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: 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.

Aims: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a new, non-thermal ablation modality for pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The multi-centre EUropean Real World Outcomes with Pulsed Field AblatiOn in Patients with Symptomatic AtRIAl Fibrillation (EU-PORIA) registry sought to determine the safety, efficacy, and learning curve characteristics for the pentaspline, multi-electrode PFA catheter., Methods and Results: All-comer AF patients from seven high-volume centres were consecutively enrolled. Procedural and follow-up data were collected. Learning curve effects were analysed by operator ablation experience and primary ablation modality. In total, 1233 patients (61% male, mean age 66 ± 11years, 60% paroxysmal AF) were treated by 42 operators. In 169 patients (14%), additional lesions outside the PVs were performed, most commonly at the posterior wall (n = 127). Median procedure and fluoroscopy times were 58 (interquartile range: 40-87) and 14 (9-21) min, respectively, with no differences due to operator experience. Major complications occurred in 21/1233 procedures (1.7%) including pericardial tamponade (14; 1.1%) and transient ischaemic attack or stroke (n = 7; 0.6%), of which one was fatal. Prior cryoballoon users had less complication. At a median follow-up of 365 (323-386) days, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of arrhythmia-free survival was 74% (80% for paroxysmal and 66% for persistent AF). Freedom from arrhythmia was not influenced by operator experience. In 149 (12%) patients, a repeat procedure was performed due to AF recurrence and 418/584 (72%) PVs were durably isolated., Conclusion: The EU-PORIA registry demonstrates a high single-procedure success rate with an excellent safety profile and short procedure times in a real-world, all-comer AF patient population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: B.S. is a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. S.B. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Biosense Webster. K.R.J.C. is a consultant for and has received honoraria as well as research funding from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. S.B. is consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, and Zoll. R.A.: none. R.M.: none. T.R. has received research grants from the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund, all for work outside the submitted study. He has received speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Farapulse, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS, all for work outside the submitted study. He has received support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense-Webster, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, and Medtronic for work outside the submitted study. L.R. received research grants from Medtronic and speaker/consulting honoraria from Abbott and Medtronic. T.K.: none. K.N. is a consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Field Medical, and LifeTech Scientific. A.F.: educational grant from Boston Scientific. N.R.: consultant for Boston Scientific. J.H.: speakers fees from Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster. M.H.R.: none. A.O.: none. P.v.d.V.: none. Y.B. has received research grants from Medtronic and Atricure. He has received speaker/consulting honoraria from Abbott/SJM and Boston-Scientific, all for work outside the submitted study. B.A.M.: none. C.W.S. and E.M.A.: salaried employees of Boston Scientific., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Recently, a novel cryoballoon ablation catheter has demonstrated acute safety and efficacy in de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) procedures in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). However, there are limited studies demonstrating the long-term efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of this novel cryoballoon in treating PAF., Methods: This was a non-randomized, prospective, multicentre study enrolling 58 consecutive patients. Cryoablation was delivered for 180 s if time to isolation was ≤ 60 s. Otherwise a 240-s cryoablation was performed. One centre performed pre- and post-ablation high-density mapping (n = 9) to characterize lesion formation. After a 3-month blanking period, recurrence was defined as having any documented, symptomatic episode(s) of AF or atrial tachycardia. All patients were followed for 1 year., Results: Acute PVI was achieved in 230 of 231 pulmonary veins (99.6%) with 5.3 ± 1.6 cryoablations per patient (1.3 ± 0.7 cryoablations per vein). Forty-three (77%) patients remained arrhythmia-free at 1-year follow-up. Four patients (6.9%) experienced phrenic nerve injury (3 resolved during the index procedure; 1 resolved at 6 months). One serious adverse device event was reported: femoral arterial embolism event occurring 2 weeks post-index procedure. For patients who underwent high-density mapping, cryoablation was antral with 50% of the posterior wall ablated., Conclusions: Initial multicentre clinical experience with a novel cryoballoon has demonstrated safety and efficacy of PVI in patients with PAF. Ablation with this cryoballoon provides a wide, antral lesion set with significant debulking of the posterior wall of the left atrium., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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.)

Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a well-established strategy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Despite randomized controlled trials and real-world data showing the promise of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) for this treatment, long-term efficacy and safety data demonstrating single-procedure outcomes off antiarrhythmic drugs remain limited. The aim of the FARA-Freedom Study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of PFA using the pentaspline catheter for PAF. Methods and results FARA-Freedom, a prospective, non-randomized, multicentre study, enrolled patients with PAF undergoing de novo PVI with PFA, who were followed for 12 months with weekly transtelephonic monitoring and a 72-h Holter ECG at 6 and 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of device- or procedure-related serious adverse events out to 7 days post-ablation and PV stenosis or atrioesophageal (AE) fistula out to 12 months. Treatment success is a composite of acute PVI and chronic success, which includes freedom from any documented atrial tachyarrhythmia longer than 30 s, use of antiarrhythmic drugs or cardioversion after a 3-month blanking period, or use of amiodarone or repeat ablation at any time. The study enrolled 179 PAF patients (62 ± 10 years, 39% female) at 13 centres. At the index procedure, all PVs were successfully isolated with the pentaspline PFA catheter. Procedure and left atrial dwell times, with a 20-min waiting period, were 71.9 ± 17.6 and 41.0 ± 13.3 min, respectively. Fluoroscopy time was 11.5 ± 7.4 min. Notably, monitoring compliance was high, with 88.4 and 90.3% with weekly events and 72-h Holter monitors, respectively. Freedom from the composite primary effectiveness endpoint was 66.6%, and 41 patients had atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, mostly recurrent atrial fibrillation (31 patients). The composite safety endpoint occurred in two patients (1.1%), one tamponade and one transient ischaemic attack. There was no coronary spasm, PV stenosis, or AE fistula. There were four cases of transient phrenic nerve palsy, but all resolved during the index procedure. Conclusion In this prospective, non-randomized, multicentre study, PVI using a pentaspline PFA catheter was effective in treating PAF patients despite rigourous endpoint definitions and high monitoring compliance and demonstrated favourable safety. Registration Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT05072964 (sponsor: Boston Scientific Corporation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a new, non-thermal ablation modality for pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The multi-centre EUropean Real World Outcomes with Pulsed Field AblatiOn in Patients with Symptomatic AtRIAl Fibrillation (EU-PORIA) registry sought to determine the safety, efficacy, and learning curve characteristics for the pentaspline, multi-electrode PFA catheter. Methods and results All-comer AF patients from seven high-volume centres were consecutively enrolled. Procedural and follow-up data were collected. Learning curve effects were analysed by operator ablation experience and primary ablation modality. In total, 1233 patients (61% male, mean age 66 ± 11years, 60% paroxysmal AF) were treated by 42 operators. In 169 patients (14%), additional lesions outside the PVs were performed, most commonly at the posterior wall (n = 127). Median procedure and fluoroscopy times were 58 (interquartile range: 40–87) and 14 (9–21) min, respectively, with no differences due to operator experience. Major complications occurred in 21/1233 procedures (1.7%) including pericardial tamponade (14; 1.1%) and transient ischaemic attack or stroke (n = 7; 0.6%), of which one was fatal. Prior cryoballoon users had less complication. At a median follow-up of 365 (323–386) days, the Kaplan–Meier estimate of arrhythmia-free survival was 74% (80% for paroxysmal and 66% for persistent AF). Freedom from arrhythmia was not influenced by operator experience. In 149 (12%) patients, a repeat procedure was performed due to AF recurrence and 418/584 (72%) PVs were durably isolated. Conclusion The EU-PORIA registry demonstrates a high single-procedure success rate with an excellent safety profile and short procedure times in a real-world, all-comer AF patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become a cornerstone of the invasive treatment of atrial fibrillation. Severe complications are reported in 1-3% of patients. This study aims to compare complications and follow-up outcome of PVI in patients with atrial fibrillation.Methods and Results: The data were extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration. Procedural and follow-up outcomes in patients treated with conventional radiofrequency (C-RF), multielectrode phased RF (Ph-RF), or cryoballoon (CB) ablation from 2012 to 2017 were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify variables associated with complications and repeat ablations. In total, 13 823 patients (69% male) were included. The reported complication incidence was 3.6%. Patients treated with C-RF developed more cardiac tamponades (C-RF 0.8% vs. Ph-RF 0.3% vs. CB 0.3%, P ≤ 0.001) and vascular complications (C-RF 1.7% vs. Ph-RF 1.2% vs. CB 1.3%, P ≤ 0.001). Ph-RF was associated with fewer bleeding complications (C-RF: 1.0% vs. Ph-RF: 0.4% vs. CB: 0.7%, P = 0.020). Phrenic nerve palsy mainly occurred in patients treated with CB (C-RF: 0.1% vs. Ph-RF: 0.2% vs. CB: 1.5%, P ≤ 0.001). In total, 18.4% of patients were referred for repeat ablation within 1 year. Female sex, age, and CHA2DS2-VASc were independent risk factors for cardiac tamponade and bleeding complications, with an adjusted OR for female patients of 2.97 (95% CI 1.98-4.45) and 2.02 (95% CI 1.03-4.00) respectively.Conclusion: The reported complication rate during PVI was low. Patients treated with C-RF ablation were more likely to develop cardiac tamponades and vascular complications. Female sex was associated with more cardiac tamponade and bleeding complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]