Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system versus currently available 2^nd/3^rd/4^th generation Cryoballoon technologies (CRYO). We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or 2^nd/3^rd/4^th generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. PFA demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs 99.1%; p<0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs 98.4%; p<0.001). PFA yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs 5.6%; p<0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs 105.6 min; p<0.001) and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs 18.9 min; p<0.001) compared to CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs 1.0%; p=0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs 80.3%; Log-rank p= 0.61). PFA contributed to higher acute procedural success, and safety compared to CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.

Introduction: Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common clinical condition in the general population. A subgroup of patients with MVP may experience ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (“arrhythmic mitral valve prolapse” [AMVP]) but how to stratify arrhythmic risk is still unclear. Our meta‐analysis aims to identify predictive factors for arrhythmic risk in patients with MVP.Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Cochrane, Journals@Ovid, Scopus electronic databases for studies published up to December 28, 2022 and comparing AMVP and nonarrhythmic mitral valve prolapse (NAMVP) for what concerns history, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance features. The effect size was estimated using a random‐effect model as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD).Results: A total of 10 studies enrolling 1715 patients were included. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (OR: 16.67; p = .005), T‐wave inversion (TWI) (OR: 2.63; p < .0001), bileaflet MVP (OR: 1.92; p < .0001) and mitral anulus disjunction (MAD) (OR: 2.60; p < .0001) were more represented among patients with AMVP than in NAMVP. Patients with AMVP were shown to have longer anterior mitral leaflet (AML) (MD: 2.63 mm; p < .0001), posterior mitral leaflet (MD: 2.96 mm; p < .0001), thicker AML (MD: 0.49 mm; p < .0001), longer MAD length (MD: 1.24 mm; p < .0001) and higher amount of LGE (MD: 1.41%; p < .0001) than NAMVP. AMVP showed increased mechanical dispersion (MD: 8.04 ms; 95% confidence interval: 5.13–10.96; p < .0001) compared with NAMVP.Conclusions: Our meta‐analysis proved that LGE, TWI, bileaflet MVP, and MAD are predictive factors for arrhythmic risk in MVP patients.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist and synergistically contribute to an increased risk of hospitalization, stroke, and mortality. Objective: To compare the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) versus medical therapy (MT) in HF patients with AF. Methods: Electronic databases were queried for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CA versus MT of AF in patients with HF. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Results: A total of nine RCTs enrolling 2155 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to MT, CA led to a significant reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (24.6% vs. 37.1%; RR: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.53–0.80); p < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (8.8% vs. 13.6%; RR: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51–0.82); p = 0.0005), HF hospitalization (15.4% vs. 22.4%; (RR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54–0.82); p = 0.0001), AF recurrence (31.8% vs. 77.0%; RR: 0.36 (95% CI: 0.24–0.54); p < 0.0001), and cardiovascular (CV) death (4.9% vs. 8.4%; RR: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.39–0.86); p = 0.007). CA improved the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD:4.76% (95% CI: 2.35–7.18); p = 0.0001), 6 min walk test (MD: 20.48 m (95% CI: 10.83–30.14); p < 0.0001), peak oxygen consumption (MD: 3.1 2mL/kg/min (95% CI: 1.01–5.22); p = 0.004), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (MD: −6.98 (95% CI: −12–03, −1.93); p = 0.007), and brain natriuretic peptide levels (MD:−133.94 pg/mL (95% CI: −197.33, −70.55); p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In HF patients, AF catheter ablation was superior to MT in reducing CV and all-cause mortality. Further significant benefits occurred within the ablation group in terms of HF hospitalizations, AF recurrences, the systolic function, exercise capacity, and quality of life.