Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel, non-thermal energy source to selectively ablate cardiac tissue. We describe a multicentre experience on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) via the pentaspline Farapulse™ PFA system vs. thermal-based technologies in a propensity score-matched population of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) patients. Propensity score matching was adopted to compare PVI-only ablation outcomes via the Farawave™ system (Group PFA), cryoballoon (Group CRYO), or focal radiofrequency (Group RF) (PFA:CRYO:RF ratio = 1:2:2). Among 1572 (mean age: 62.4 ± 11.3 years; 42.5% females) PAF patients undergoing first time PVI with either PFA (n = 174), CRYO (n = 655), or RF (n = 743), propensity score matching yielded 174 PFA, 348 CRYO, and 348 RF patients. First-pass isolation was achieved in 98.8% of pulmonary veins (PVs) with PFA, 81.5% with CRYO, and 73.1% with RF (P < 0.001). Procedural and dwell times were significantly shorter with PFA, whereas the availability of a 3D mapping system led to a significant reduction in X-ray exposure with RF. Overall complication rates were 3.4% (n = 6) with PFA, 8.6% (n = 30) with CRYO, and 5.5% (n = 19) with RF (P = 0.052). The 1-year Kaplan–Meier estimated freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia was 79.3% with PFA, 74.7% with CRYO, and 72.4% with RF (log-rank P-value: 0.24). Among 145 repeat ablation procedures, PV reconnection rate was 19.1% after PFA, 27.5% after CRYO, and 34.8% after RF (P = 0.01). Pulsed field ablation contributed to significantly shorter procedural times. Follow-up data showed a similar arrhythmia freedom, although a higher rate of PV reconnection was documented in post-CRYO and post-RF redo procedures.

Management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant heart failure (HF) remains complex. The Antwerp score, based on four parameters [QRS >120 ms (2 points), known aetiology (2 points), paroxysmal AF (1 point), severe atrial dilation (1 point)] adequately estimated the probability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after AF ablation in a single-centre cohort. The present study aims to externally validate this prediction model in a large European multi-centre cohort. A total of 605 patients (61.1 ± 9.4 years, 23.8% females, 79.8% with persistent AF) with HF and impaired LVEF (<50%) undergoing AF ablation in 8 European centres were retrospectively identified. According to the LVEF changes at 12-month echocardiography, 427 (70%) patients fulfilled the ‘2021 Universal Definition of HF’ criteria for LVEF recovery and were defined as ‘responders’. External validation of the score yielded good discrimination and calibration {area under the curve 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–0.89], P < .001; Hosmer–Lemeshow P = .29}. Patients with a score < 2 had a 93% probability of LVEF recovery as opposed to only 24% in patients with a score > 3. Responders experienced more often positive ventricular remodelling [odds ratio (OR) 8.91, 95% CI 4.45–17.84, P < .001], fewer HF hospitalizations (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05–0.18, P < .001) and lower mortality (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04–0.31, P < .001). In this multi-centre study, a simple four-parameter score predicted LVEF recovery after AF ablation in patients with HF and discriminated clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of the Antwerp score to standardize shared decision-making regarding AF ablation referral in future clinical studies. On the upper side, the four variables included in the score and their respective weight is shown. The score was evaluated in 605 heart failure (HF) patients with impaired (<50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation (CA), recruited from 8 European centres. Based on the 2021 universal definition of HF, 12-month post-procedural LVEF improvement was observed in 427 (70%) patients (Responders). Responders were identified if: (i) in case of baseline LVEF between 40% and 50%: LVEF improvement to more than ≥50%; (ii) in case of baseline LVEF 40%. In this external evaluation study, the score accurately predicted the response rate [area under the curve (AUC) 0.859, P < .001] with a good calibration (P = .296), as shown on the lower right side. In the lower left side, the specific response rate stratified according to the score value is represented.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly being performed in electrophysiology laboratories. Pericardial effusion (PE) is certainly one of the most frequently observed complications during AF ablation. The aim of our study was to investigate the incidence and outcome of PE following cryothermal energy balloon ablation (CBA) in comparison with conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation with a focal radiofrequency (RF) catheter. A total of 133 consecutive patients (105 males) with paroxysmal AF were included in this study. Forty-six patients (36 males) underwent CBA (Arctic Front, Medtronic, USA) and 87 (69 males) point-by-point RF ablation guided by electroanatomical mapping (Carto, Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA). Ablation was performed under general anaesthesia with both techniques. All patients underwent a 2D transthoracic echocardiogram within 24 h before and after the procedure as routinely performed in our centre. Pericardial effusion was detected in 19 (14.2%) of 133 patients. Sixteen patients presented mild effusion, one moderate effusion, and two pericardial tamponades. There was no significant difference in the incidence of PE between the cryoballoon and the RF group (11 vs. 16%). A longer procedural time, coronary artery disease, and arterial hypertension were found to be independent predictors of PE during AF ablation. Pericardial effusion occurred in a similar proportion following CBA and RF ablation for AF. Pericardial effusion was mostly mild and asymptomatic, with benign clinical outcome not requiring additional hospitalization days.

The aim of this study was to compare procedural efficacy and safety, including 1-year freedom from AF recurrence, between the novel cryoballoon system PolarX (Boston Scientific) and the Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA-Pro) (Medtronic), in patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing PVI. This multicentre prospective observational study included 267 consecutive patients undergoing a first cryoablation procedure for paroxysmal AF (137 PolarX, 130 AFA-Pro). KM curves with the log-rank test was used to compare the 1-year freedom from AF recurrence between both groups. Multivariate Cox model was performed to evaluate whether the type of procedure (PolarX vs. AFA-Pro) had an impact on the occurrence of AF recurrences after adjustment on potentially confounding factors. The PolarX reaches lower temperatures than the AFA-Pro (LSPV 52 ± 5, vs. 59 ± 6; LIPV 49 ± 6 vs. 56 ± 6; right superior pulmonary vein: 49 ± 6 vs. 57 ± 7; right inferior pulmonary vein: 52 ± 6 vs. 59 ± 6; P < 0.0001). A higher rate of transient phrenic nerve palsy was found in patients treated with the PolarX system (15% vs. 7%, P = 0.05). After a mean follow-up of 15 ± 5 months, 20 patients (15%) had recurrences in AFA-Pro group and 27 patients (19%) in PolarX group (P = 0.35). Based on survival analysis, no significant difference was observed between both groups with a 12-month free of recurrence survival of 91.2% (85.1–95.4%) vs. 83.7% (76.0%–89.1%) (log-rank test P = 0.11). In multivariate Cox model hazard ratio of recurrence for PolarX vs. AFA-Pro was not significant [HR = 1.6 (0.9–2.8), P = 0.12]. PolarX and AFA-Pro have comparable efficacy and safety profiles for pulmonary veins isolation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.