Treatment guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suggest that patients should be managed with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) before undergoing catheter ablation (CA). This study evaluated whether pulmonary vein isolation employing cryoballoon CA is superior to AAD therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence in rhythm control naive patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF). A total of 218 treatment naive patients with symptomatic PAF were randomized (1 : 1) to cryoballoon CA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III) and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was ≥1 episode of recurrent AA (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) >30 s after a prespecified 90-day blanking period. Secondary endpoints included the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) and recurrence of symptomatic palpitations (evaluated via patient diaries). Freedom from AA was achieved in 82.2% of subjects in the cryoballoon arm and 67.6% of subjects in the AAD arm (HR = 0.48, P = 0.01). There were no group differences in the time-to-first (HR = 0.76, P = 0.28) or overall incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.79, P = 0.28] of SAEs. The incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower in the cryoballoon (7.61 days/year) compared with the AAD arm (18.96 days/year; IRR = 0.40, P < 0.001). Cryoballoon CA was superior to AAD therapy, significantly reducing AA recurrence in treatment naive patients with PAF. Additionally, cryoballoon CA was associated with lower symptom recurrence and a similar rate of SAEs compared with AAD therapy.

The question of when and how to treat truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function is still subject to debate and ongoing research. Here, the results of extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial are reported (NCT02436655, ClinicalTrials.gov). The AVATAR trial randomly assigned patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and LV ejection fraction ≥ 50% to undergo either early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy. All patients had negative exercise stress testing. The primary hypothesis was that early AVR will reduce a primary composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF), as compared with conservative treatment strategy. A total of 157 low-risk patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 1.7%) were randomly allocated to either the early AVR group (n = 78) or the conservative treatment group (n = 79). In an intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint outcome event occurred in 18/78 patients (23.1%) in the early surgery group and in 37/79 patients (46.8%) in the conservative treatment group [hazard ratio (HR) early surgery vs. conservative treatment 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24–0.73, P = .002]. The Kaplan–Meier estimates for individual endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the early surgery compared with the conservative group (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23–0.85, P = .012, for all-cause death and HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06–0.73, P = .007, for HF hospitalizations). The extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial demonstrates better clinical outcomes with early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction compared with patients treated with conservative management on watchful waiting. The design and main result of the AVATAR randomized trial (intention-to-treat population). AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CI, confidence interval; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; LV, left ventricular.

Novel wearable devices for heart rhythm analysis using either photoplethysmography (PPG) or electrocardiogram (ECG) are in daily clinical practice. This survey aimed to assess impact of these technologies on physicians’ clinical decision-making and to define, how data from these devices should be presented and integrated into clinical practice. The online survey included 22 questions, focusing on the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) based on wearable rhythm device recordings, suitable indications for wearable rhythm devices, data presentation and processing, reimbursement, and future perspectives. A total of 539 respondents {median age 38 [interquartile range (IQR) 34–46] years, 29% female} from 51 countries world-wide completed the survey. Whilst most respondents would diagnose AF (83%), fewer would initiate oral anticoagulation therapy based on a single-lead ECG tracing. Significantly fewer still (27%) would make the diagnosis based on PPG-based tracing. Wearable ECG technology is acceptable for the majority of respondents for screening, diagnostics, monitoring, and follow-up of arrhythmia patients, while respondents were more reluctant to use PPG technology for these indications. Most respondents (74%) would advocate systematic screening for AF using wearable rhythm devices, starting at patients’ median age of 60 (IQR 50–65) years. Thirty-six percent of respondents stated that there is no reimbursement for diagnostics involving wearable rhythm devices in their countries. Most respondents (56.4%) believe that costs of wearable rhythm devices should be shared between patients and insurances. Wearable single- or multiple-lead ECG technology is accepted for multiple indications in current clinical practice and triggers AF diagnosis and treatment. The unmet needs that call for action are reimbursement plans and integration of wearable rhythm device data into patient’s files and hospital information systems.

Advanced ablation strategies are needed to treat ventricular tachycardia (VT) and premature ventricular complexes (PVC) refractory to standard unipolar radiofrequency ablation (Uni-RFA). Bipolar radiofrequency catheter ablation (Bi-RFA) has emerged as a treatment option for refractory VT and PVC. Multicentre registry data on the use of Bi-RFA in the setting of refractory VT and PVC are lacking. The aim of this Bi-RFA registry is to determine its real-world safety, feasibility, and efficacy in patients with refractory VT/PVC. Consecutive patients undergoing Bi-RFA at 16 European centres for recurring VT/PVC after at least one standard Uni-RFA were included. Second ablation catheter was used instead of a dispersive patch and was positioned at the opposite site of the ablation target. Between March 2021 and August 2024, 91 patients underwent 94 Bi-RFA procedures (74 males, age 62 ± 13, and prior Uni-RFA range 1–8). Indications were recurrence of PVC (n = 56), VT (n = 20), electrical storm (n = 13), or PVC-triggered ventricular fibrillation (n = 2). Procedural time was 160 ± 73 min, Bi-RFA time 426 ± 286 s, and mean Uni-RFA time 819 ± 697 s. Elimination of clinical VT/PVC was achieved in 67 (74%) patients and suppression of VT/PVC in a further 10 (11%) patients. In the remaining 14 patients (15%), no effect on VT/PVC was observed. Three major complications occurred: coronary artery occlusion, atrioventricular block, and arteriovenous fistula. Follow-up lasted 7 ± 8 months. Nineteen patients (61%) remained VT free. ≥80% PVC burden reduction was achieved in 45 (78%). These real-world registry data indicate that Bi-RFA appears safe, is feasible, and is effective in the majority of patients with VT/PVC.