Background: The best ablation treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) patients is still debated. The vein of Marshall (VOM) seems to be a promising target for ablation and could be combined with a linear set of ablation lesions. The aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence of AF recurrences in a PeAF population treated with a comprehensive ablation approach consisting of VOM ethanol infusion (EI), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), a left atrial (LA) roofline, a mitral line (guided by the newly formed lesion after alcohol infusion into the VOM and validated by pacing), and a cavotricuspid isthmus line. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing the first ablation procedure of catheter ablation (CA) for PeAF were enrolled. All patients underwent VOM-EI, PVI, and ablation lines along the roof of the LA, mitral, and cavotricuspid isthmus. LA voltage mapping before and after VOM-EI was also performed. An implantable loop recorder (ILR) was implanted at the end of the ablation in each patient. Results: Thirty-one consecutive patients (66 ± 8 years and 71% male) affected by PeAF were included in this study. The VOM-EI procedural phase lasted 21.4 ± 10.1 min. PV isolation and lines were validated in all subjects. The ML block was achieved within 10.8 ± 8.7 min. At a mean follow-up of 12 ± 7 months, 27 out of 31 (87%) patients remained free from AT/AF recurrences. Among the patients with recurrences, two (50%) had incomplete ablation lesions and three (75%) had “suboptimal” VOM-EI. In 23/31 patients (74%), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) were discontinued after 1 month of follow-up. No significant complications were reported during the follow-up. Conclusions: this single-center experience demonstrates that VOM-EI systematically combined with an anatomical ablation set in patients with PeAF resulted in feasible, safe, and effective freedom from AF/AT recurrences in 87% of the population after a 1-year follow-up period according to an ILR.

Aim: International guidelines on the use of anti-thrombotic therapies in left-sided ablations other than atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. The data regarding antiplatelet or anticoagulation strategies after catheter ablation (CA) procedures mainly derive from AF, whereas for the other arrhythmic substrates, the anti-thrombotic approach remains unclear. This survey aims to explore the current practices regarding antithrombotic management before, during, and after left-sided endocardial ablation, not including atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy. Material and Methods: Electrophysiologists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions on antiplatelet (APT) and anticoagulation therapy for the following left-sided procedures: accessory pathway (AP), atrial (AT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without structural heart disease (SHD). Results: We obtained 41 answers from 41 centers in 15 countries. For AP, before ablation, only four respondents (9.7%) used antiplatelets and two (4.9%) used anticoagulants. At discharge, APT therapy was prescribed by 22 respondents (53.7%), and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) only by one (2.4%). In patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), before ablation, APT prophylaxis was prescribed by only four respondents (9.7%) and OAC by eleven (26.8%). At discharge, APT was recommended by 12 respondents (29.3%) and OAC by 24 (58.5%). For VT without SHD, before CA, only six respondents (14.6%) suggested APT and three (7.3%) suggested OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, APT was recommended by fifteen respondents (36.6%) and OAC by five (12.2%). Regarding VT in SHD, before the procedure, eight respondents (19.5%) prescribed APT and five (12.2%) prescribed OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, the administration of anti-thrombotic therapy depended on the LV ejection fraction for eleven respondents (26.8%), on the procedure time for ten (24.4%), and on the radiofrequency time for four (9.8%), with a cut-off value from 1 to 30 min. Conclusions: Our survey indicates that the management of anti-thrombotic therapy surrounding left-sided endocardial ablation of patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy is highly variable. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safest approach to these procedures.

Background/Objectives: Patient-reported outcome after treatment is an important factor that positively correlates with the quality of care and can influence the patient’s future health choices. Both radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) are effective techniques for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have shown similar results in efficacy and safety, but they have not been thoroughly compared in terms of patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is to assess the satisfaction of paroxysmal AF patients who underwent RFA and CBA after their first procedure. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent their first procedure of pulmonary vein isolation with RFA or CBA in eight international centres were included. A ten-point Likert scale was used for measuring patient-reported outcomes, evaluating anxiety before procedure, pain during and after ablation, motivation to repeat the procedure in future if necessary, and real and perceived procedural time. Results: A total of 483 patients were enrolled. Median age was 63 [56–69] years, and 281 (58.1%) patients were men. In total, 385 (79.7%) patients underwent RFA and 98 (20.3%) underwent CBA. RFA and CBA were equivalent in terms of the satisfaction of the patient, with the only exception being groin pain, which was lower in the CBA group (2 [0–3] vs. 3 [1–4], p = 0.002). Conscious sedation was used in 414 (86.7%) patients and general anaesthesia in 69 (14.3%) patients. The use of general anaesthesia reduced the perceived pain during and after the procedure in both techniques (p < 0.05), but it resulted in lower pre-procedural anxiety only in RFA patients compared to those under conscious sedation (4 [2–6] vs. 5 [3–7], p = 0.007). Anaesthetic management alone did not affect the willingness to repeat the procedure in RFA patients, while CBA patients under general anaesthesia were more motivated to repeat the procedure than those under conscious sedation (10 [8–10] vs. 7 [6–8], p < 0.001). The perceived procedure time was shorter than the actual time in all settings. Conclusions: Anaesthetic management seems to have a greater impact on patient-reported outcome than the technique used during ablation. Despite this, patients most motivated to repeat the procedure were those who underwent CBA under general anaesthesia.

Background: Atrial arrhythmias represent a frequent long-term complication in patients with atrial septal defects (ASDs). Interatrial block (IAB), reflecting delayed or impaired conduction across Bachmann’s bundle, has been proposed as an electrophysiological substrate predisposing to atrial arrhythmogenesis. However, evidence regarding its prevalence and clinical correlates in pediatric patients with ASD remains limited. The present study aimed to characterize interatrial conduction patterns and assess the occurrence of IAB in children with large secundum ASD undergoing percutaneous closure. Methods: Between January 2020 and March 2024, 37 consecutive pediatric patients (median age 6 years, range 5–11) with large ostium secundum ASD were included in a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional database. Standard 12-lead electrocardiograms were recorded before and within 24 h after defect closure. P-wave morphology and duration were systematically analyzed, and IAB was classified according to the Bayés de Luna criteria. Results: The median Qp/Qs ratio was 1.69 (1.32–2.24), with a mean pulmonary artery pressure of 19 mmHg (17–22). IAB was identified in 24.3% of patients before the procedure, predominantly as first-degree IAB. Following device implantation, IAB prevalence (29.7%) and P-wave parameters remained unchanged, with no significant differences compared with baseline. No associations were observed between IAB and defect size, hemodynamic burden, or device characteristics, whereas anthropometric variables, including weight, height, and body surface area, showed a significant correlation with IAB occurrence. During a median follow-up of 199 days, no atrial arrhythmias were documented. Conclusions: In this pediatric cohort with large ASD, IAB was present in approximately one quarter of patients and appeared unrelated to anatomical or procedural factors, supporting the hypothesis of an underlying congenital conduction abnormality. Early recognition of IAB may therefore have implications for long-term arrhythmic risk stratification in this population.