In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

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) 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.

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. 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). 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.

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

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.

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a primary disease of the myocardium, predominantly caused by genetic defects in proteins of the cardiac intercalated disc, particularly, desmosomes. Transmission is mostly autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance. ACM also has wide phenotype variability, ranging from premature ventricular contractions to sudden cardiac death and heart failure. Among other drivers and modulators of phenotype, inflammation in response to viral infection and immune triggers have been postulated to be an aggravator of cardiac myocyte damage and necrosis. This theory is supported by multiple pieces of evidence, including the presence of inflammatory infiltrates in more than two-thirds of ACM hearts, detection of different cardiotropic viruses in sporadic cases of ACM, the fact that patients with ACM often fulfill the histological criteria of active myocarditis, and the abundance of anti–desmoglein-2, antiheart, and anti-intercalated disk autoantibodies in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. In keeping with the frequent familial occurrence of ACM, it has been proposed that, in addition to genetic predisposition to progressive myocardial damage, a heritable susceptibility to viral infections and immune reactions may explain familial clustering of ACM. Moreover, considerable in vitro and in vivo evidence implicates activated inflammatory signaling in ACM. Although the role of inflammation/immune response in ACM is not entirely clear, inflammation as a driver of phenotype and a potential target for mechanism-based therapy warrants further research. This review discusses the present evidence supporting the role of inflammatory and immune responses in ACM pathogenesis and proposes opportunities for translational and clinical investigation.