No abstract

No abstract

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.

Introduction Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural efficacy and biophysical characteristics of both systems. Methods One hundred and ten consecutive patients who underwent first‐time cryoballoon ablation (POLARx: n = 57; AFA‐Pro: n = 53) were included in this prospective cohort study. Results Acute isolation was achieved in 99.8% of all pulmonary veins (POLARx: 99.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 100%, p = 1.00). Total procedure time (81 vs. 67 min, p < .001) and balloon in body time (51 vs. 35 min, p < .001) were longer with POLARx. After a learning curve, these times were similar. Cryoablation with POLARx was associated with shorter time to balloon temperature −30°C (27 vs. 31 s, p < .001) and −40°C (32 vs. 54 s, p < .001), lower balloon nadir temperature (−55°C vs. −47°C, p < .001), and longer thawing time till 0°C (16 vs. 9 s, p < .001). There were no differences in time‐to‐isolation (TTI; POLARx: 45 s vs. AFA‐Pro 43 s, p = .441), however, POLARx was associated with a lower balloon temperature at TTI (−46°C vs. −37°C, p < .001). Factors associated with acute isolation differed between groups. The incidence of phrenic nerve palsy was comparable (POLARx: 3.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 3.7%). Conclusion The novel cryoballoon is comparable to AFA‐Pro and requires only a short learning curve to get used to the slightly different handling. It was associated with faster cooling rates and lower balloon temperatures but TTI was similar to AFA‐Pro.

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.