Search

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common with a prevalence of 20-50% at one year after LVAD implantation. Arrhythmias predispose these patients to additional risk and are associated with considerable morbidity from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, progressive failure of the unsupported right ventricle, and herald an increased risk of mortality. Management of patients with arrhythmias and LVAD differs in many aspects from the general population heart failure patients. These include ruling out the reversible causes of arrhythmias that in LVAD patients may include mechanical irritation from the inflow cannula and suction events. For patients with symptomatic arrhythmias refractory to medical treatment, catheter ablation might be relevant. There are specific technical and procedural challenges perceived to be unique to LVAD-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation such as vascular and LV access, signal filtering, catheter manoeuvrability within decompressed chambers, and electroanatomic mapping system interference. In some patients, the arrhythmogenic substrate might not be readily accessible by catheter ablation after LVAD implantation. In this regard, the peri-implantation period offers a unique opportunity to surgically address arrhythmogenic substrate and suppress future VT recurrences. This document aims to address specific aspects of the management of arrhythmias in LVAD patients focusing on anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and ablations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: O.A. serves as an advisor for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and reports consulting fees from Medical Consults: Restore -Medical, Cordio-Medical, and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.B-G. serves as an advisor for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Medtronic, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. F.G. serves as an advisor for Abbott, FineHeart, AdjuCor, Corwave, Bayer, Astra-Zeneca, Ionis, Alnylam, and Roche. M.PE. reports research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, SQ Innovations, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pharmacosmos, and consultancy for Abott, Akero, Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, AnaCardio, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corteria, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, Abbvie, Bayer, Horizon Therapeutics, Foundry, Takeda, Cardiorentis, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, Eli Lilly, Vifor, New Amsterdam, Moderna, Teikoku, LIB Therapeutics, 3R Lifesciences, Reprieve, FIRE 1, Corvia, Regeneron. M.PA. reports fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. P.P. reports speakers’ honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Biotronik. F.S. reports speakers’ honoraria from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from Inheart. Others report no relevant conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiac amyloidosis is an infiltrative cardiomyopathy characterized by the extracellular deposition of amyloid fibrils within the myocardium. Beyond heart failure, patients with cardiac amyloidosis commonly present with arrhythmias and conduction system disorders. Atrial fibrillation is observed in up to 80% of patients at the time of diagnosis, with patients typically maintaining normal heart rates due to concurrent atrioventricular nodal disease. The thromboembolic risk is particularly high in patients with cardiac amyloidosis, and left atrial thrombi have been observed even in the absence of atrial fibrillation. Conduction system diseases are also highly prevalent, often necessitating permanent pacemaker implantation. The use of implantable defibrillators in this population remains controversial. This overview of published data and therapeutic strategies related to arrhythmias and conduction system disorders aims to assist readers in decision-making in complex clinical scenarios., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Reliability of power supply for current implantable electronic devices is a critical issue for longevity and for reducing the risk of device failure. Energy harvesting is an emerging technology, representing a strategy for establishing autonomous power supply by utilizing biomechanical movements in human body. Here, a novel "Twistron energy cell harvester" (TECH), consisting of coiled carbon nanotube yarn that converts mechanical energy of the beating heart into electrical energy, is presented. The performance of TECH is evaluated in an in vitro artificial heartbeat system which simulates the deformation pattern of the cardiac surface, reaching a maximum peak power of 1.42 W kg -1 and average power of 0.39 W kg -1 at 60 beats per minute. In vivo implantation of TECH onto the left ventricular surface in a porcine model continuously generates electrical energy from cardiac contraction. The generated electrical energy is used for direct pacing of the heart as documented by extensive electrophysiology mapping. Implanted modified carbon nanotubes are applicable as a source for harvesting biomechanical energy from cardiac motion for power supply or cardiac pacing., (© 2024 The Authors. Advanced Materials published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse., Methods: Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared., Results: In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m 2 , PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m 2 ; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement., Conclusion: In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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).)

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) represents the gold standard in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the use of single-shot techniques, such as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a pentaspline catheter, has gained prominence. Recent studies hypothesize that PFA might be superior to CBA, although procedural efficacy and safety data are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare both energy sources for the treatment of AF., Methods and Results: A structured systematic database search and meta-analysis were performed on studies investigating outcomes, periprocedural complications, and/or procedural parameters of AF patients treated by either CBA or PFA. Eleven studies reporting data from 3805 patients were included. Pulmonary vein isolation by PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia [odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.98, I 2 = 20%] and fewer periprocedural complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.40-0.96, I 2 = 6%) compared to CBA. The lower complication rate following PFA was mainly driven by fewer phrenic nerve injuries (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08-0.43, I 2 = 0%). However, there were more cases of cardiac tamponades after PFA (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.01-6.49, I 2 = 0%). Additionally, using PFA for PVI was associated with shorter total procedure times [mean difference (MD) = -9.68, 95% CI = -14.92 to -4.43 min, I 2 = 92%] and lower radiation exposure (MD = -148.07, 95% CI = -276.50 to -19.64 µGy·mI 2 = 7%)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that PFA for PVI, compared to CBA, enables shorter procedure times with lower arrhythmia recurrence and a reduced risk of periprocedural complications. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm our findings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R.W. received honoraria for lectures and advisory board activities and research funding from Boston Scientific. Otherwise, there are no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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: Approximately one-third of sudden cardiac deaths in the young (SCDY) occur due to a structural cardiac disease. Forty to fifty percent of SCDY cases remain unexplained after autopsy (including microscopic and forensic-toxicological analyses), suggesting arrhythmia syndromes as a possible cause of death. Due to the possible inheritability of these diseases, blood relatives of the deceased may equally be carriers of the causative genetic variations and therefore may have an increased cardiac risk profile. A better understanding of the forensic, clinical, and genetic data might help identify a subset of the general population that is at increased risk of sudden cardiac death., Study Design: The German registry RESCUED (REgistry for Sudden Cardiac and UnExpected Death) comprises information about SCDY fatalities and clinical and genetic data of both the deceased and their biological relatives. The datasets collected in the RESCUED registry will allow for the identification of leading causes of SCDY in Germany and offer unique possibilities of scientific analyses with the aim of detecting unrecognized trends, risk factors, and clinical warning signs of SCDY. In a pilot phase of 24 months, approximately 180 SCDY cases (< 50 years of age) and 500 family members and clinical patients will be included., Conclusion: RESCUED is the first registry in Germany collecting comprehensive data of SCDY cases and clinical data of the biological relatives reviewed by cardiac experts. RESCUED aims to improve individual risk assessment and public health approaches by directing resources towards early diagnosis and evidence-based, personalized therapy and prevention in affected families. Trial registration number (TRN): DRKS00033543., (© 2024. The Author(s).)