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.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a public health crisis. Only limited data are available on the characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France. Aims: To investigate the characteristics, cardiovascular complications and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France. Methods: The Critical COVID-19 France (CCF) study is a French nationwide study including all consecutive adults with a diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection hospitalized in 24 centres between 26 February and 20 April 2020. Patients admitted directly to intensive care were excluded. Clinical, biological and imaging parameters were systematically collected at hospital admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Results: Of 2878 patients included (mean ± SD age 66.6 ± 17.0 years, 57.8% men), 360 (12.5%) died in the hospital setting, of which 7 (20.7%) were transferred to intensive care before death. The majority of patients had at least one (72.6%) or two (41.6%) cardiovascular risk factors, mostly hypertension (50.8%), obesity (30.3%), dyslipidaemia (28.0%) and diabetes (23.7%). In multivariable analysis, older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03−1.06; P < 0.001), male sex (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.11−2.57; P = 0.01), diabetes (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.12−2.63; P = 0.01), chronic kidney failure (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02−2.41; P = 0.04), elevated troponin (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11−2.49; P = 0.01), elevated B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0004−2.86; P = 0.049) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥ 2 (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12−2.60; P = 0.01) were independently associated with in-hospital death. Conclusions: In this large nationwide cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France, cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors were associated with a substantial morbi-mortality burden.

AimsThe aim of this study was to compare salivary miconazole pharmacokinetics following once daily application of bioadhesive tablets (50 or 100 mg), vs the current treatment with a gel (3 times a day, 375 mg day -1 ). MethodsA three way cross over study was carried out in 18 healthy subjects (nine males, nine females) with a 1 week washout period between each treatment. Plasma and salivary pharmacokinetics of miconazole were assessed over a 24-h period. ResultsIn all subjects the tablets gave higher and more prolonged salivary miconazole concentrations than the gel. Thus salivary miconazole AUC(0,24 h) was 37.2 times greater for the 100 mg tablet (90% confidence interval [CI] 22.9, 60.5) and 18.9 times greater for the 50 mg tablet (CI 11.7, 30.6) compared with the gel. Similarly, C max was 17.2 times greater (CI 11.8, 25.2) and 7.8 times greater (CI 5.3, 11.4) for the 100 mg tablet and 50 mg tablet, respectively. Comparison of the 100 mg and 50 mg tablets gave ratios of 2.2 and 2.0 for C max and AUC(0,24 h), respectively (CI 1.5, 3.2 and 1.2, 3.2). The mean time that salivary miconazole concentrations were above 0.4 m g ml -1 (the concentration reached 3 h after application of the oral gel according to published data) or above 1.0 m g ml -1 (the MIC of some Candida species) was greater for both bioadhesive tablets than for the oral gel (10-14 h vs 1.5 h and 7 h vs 0.6 h). Only 19 plasma samples from eight subjects had concentrations of miconazole above 0.4 m g ml -1 . Ten of these were taken from five subjects after administration of the gel and nine from three subjects after administration of the tablets. ConclusionsThese data strongly support the further development of miconazole bioadhesive tablets as a sustained release formulation leading to improved antifungal exposure in the buccal cavity. A single daily application should improve compliance, whereas the low systemic absorption of miconazole will alleviate concerns regarding drug interactions and adverse effects.J.-M. Cardot et al. 34658 :4 Br J Clin Pharmacol

Background Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with and without diabetes admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods This retrospective multicentre cohort study comprised 24 tertiary medical centres in France, and included 2851 patients (675 with diabetes) hospitalized for COVID-19 between 26 February and 20 April 2020. A propensity score-matching (PSM) method (1:1 matching including patients’ characteristics, medical history, vital statistics and laboratory results) was used to compare patients with and without diabetes (n = 603 per group). The primary outcome was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or in-hospital death. Results After PSM, all baseline characteristics were well balanced between those with and without diabetes: mean age was 71.2 years; 61.8% were male; and mean BMI was 29 kg/m 2 . A history of cardiovascular, chronic kidney and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases were found in 32.8%, 22.1% and 6.4% of participants, respectively. The risk of experiencing the primary outcome was similar in patients with or without diabetes [hazard ratio (HR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95–1.41; P = 0.14], and was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97–1.69) for in-hospital death, 1.26 (95% CI: 0.9–1.72) for death with no transfer to an ICU and 1.14 (95% CI: 0.88–1.47) with transfer to an ICU. Conclusion In this retrospective study cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, diabetes was not significantly associated with a higher risk of severe outcomes after PSM. Trial registration number : NCT04344327.

Aims Although cardiac involvement has prognostic significance in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with severe forms, few studies have explored the prognostic role of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). We investigated the link between TTE parameters and prognosis in COVID-19. Methods and results Consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 24 French hospitals were retrospectively included. Comprehensive data, including clinical and biological parameters, were recorded at admission. Focused TTE was performed during hospitalization, according to clinical indication. Patients were followed for a primary composite outcome of death or transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) during hospitalization. Among 2878 patients, 445 (15%) underwent TTE. Most of these had cardiovascular risk factors, a history of cardiovascular disease, and were on cardiovascular treatments. Dilatation and dysfunction were observed in, respectively, 12% (48/412) and 23% (102/442) of patients for the left ventricle, and in 12% (47/407) and 16% (65/402) for the right ventricle (RV). Primary composite outcome occurred in 44% (n = 196) of patients [9% (n = 42) for death without ICU transfer and 35% (n = 154) for admission to ICU]. RV dilatation was the only TTE parameter associated with the primary outcome. After adjustment, male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 − 2.25; P = 0.02], higher body mass index (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 − 1.18; P = 0.01), anticoagulation (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 − 0.86; P = 0.01), and RV dilatation (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05 − 2.64; P = 0.03) remained independently associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion Echocardiographic evaluation of RV dilatation could be useful for assessing risk of severe COVID-19 developing in hospitalized patients.