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.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a fast and radical transformation in social, economic, and healthcare networks. COVID-19 outbreak may thus have profound indirect consequences on clinical presentation and management of patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Aim of this study was to assess clinical features of patients with STEMI during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This single-center, prospective study from a regional public service healthcare hub in Milan included all consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to our institute from February 21 to April 1, 2020 (during COVID-19 pandemic). These patients were compared with a historical cohort of patients admitted for STEMI during the analogous time period (February 21 to April 1) in 2018 and 2019, in terms of time from symptoms onset to hospital admission, clinical characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes. Results: A total of 26 patients were admitted for STEMI during the study period, and 7 (26.9%) of these patients tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. On admission, medical therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers use, was similar between cohorts. Median (interquartile range) time from symptoms onset to hospital admission was significantly longer in 2020 as compared to the historical cohort (15.0 [2.0–48.0] versus 2.0 [1.0–3.0] hours; P <0.01). A higher proportion of patients presenting with late presentation STEMI was observed in 2020 compared with the historical cohort (50.0% versus 4.8%; P <0.01). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention resulted indicated in 80.8% of patients in 2020 compared with 100% in the historical cohort ( P =0.06). In-hospital death, thromboembolism, mechanical ventilation, or hemodynamic decompensation needing inotropic or mechanical support were similar between years. Conclusions: These preliminary results from a cardiovascular regional public service healthcare hub demonstrate a significantly longer time from symptoms onset to hospital admission among patients with STEMI during COVID-19 pandemic compared with the same time period in the previous 2 years.

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.

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.

Aims: The feasibility and safety of the lattice-tip catheter for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation in humans remain largely unknown. This study aimed to assess feasibility, safety profile as well as patient outcomes after VA ablation with a lattice-tip catheter in a multicentre European registry. Methods and results: All 18 European centres using the AFFERA system in September 2024 agreed to participate. Clinical, procedural, and follow-up data (minimum 3 months) were systematically collected and analysed. A total of 126 patients (18% female; mean age 59 ± 16 years) underwent VA ablation using the lattice-tip catheter during the inclusion period. Ablation indications included ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 99, premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) in 23, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 4 patients. Major and minor acute complications were observed in 7 (6%) and 18 (14%) procedures, respectively. They included thrombo-embolic event (n = 2), major bleeding (n = 2), ventricular fibrillation induction (n = 1), tamponade due to epicardial access (n = 1), and cardiogenic shock due to prolonged VT mapping (n = 1). Within the first month post-procedure, three patients died [from multi-organ failure (n = 2) and sepsis (n = 1)], two had worsening heart failure, one myocardial infarction, one sepsis, and one major gastro-intestinal bleeding. After a mean follow-up of 5.6 ± 3.7 months, absence of recurrence was 78% for PVC, 70% for VT, and 100% for VF. Conclusion: In this complex population with refractory VA, ablation using the lattice-tip catheter appears feasible and relatively safe. In the absence of large, randomized trials, exhaustive registry is of key importance to ensure safety and efficacy of new catheter technologies.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel technology for catheter-based atrial arrhythmia treatment. Evidence of its application for ventricular arrhythmia ablation is still limited. In this study, we describe the feasibility and efficacy of focal PFA for premature ventricular contraction (PVC) ablation. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 20 patients referred for PVC ablation at 2 centers was enrolled, regardless of the presence of structural heart disease, PVC morphology, or previous ablation attempts. All procedures were performed using the CENTAURI System in combination with contact force sensing catheters and 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping systems. Energy output and the number of applications were left to the operator’s discretion. RESULTS: Eleven (55%) procedures were conducted under general anesthesia, 6 (30%) under deep sedation, and 3 (15%) under light sedation. Muscular contraction was observed in one case (5%). Median procedural and fluoroscopy times were 95.5 and 6.55 minutes, respectively. The median number of PFA applications was 8 with a median contact force of 10 g . A statistically significant (76%) reduction was observed in mean peak-to-peak bipolar electrogram voltage before and after ablation (0.707 versus 0.098 mV; P =0.008). Ventricular irritative firing was observed in 11 (55%) patients after PFA. The median follow-up was 120 days. Acute procedural success was achieved in 17 of 20 (85% [95% CI, 0.70–1]) patients. Two of the patients with procedural failure had late success with >80% clinical PVC burden suppression during follow-up, and 2 of 17 patients with acute success had late PVC recurrence, which accounts for a total of 17 of 20 (85% [95% CI, 0.70–1]) patients with chronic success. Transient ST-segment depression occurred in 1 patient, and the right bundle branch block was induced in 2 others (permanently only in one case). CONCLUSIONS: PVC ablation using a focal PFA is feasible, effective, and safe, with promising acute and long-term results in several ventricular locations. Irritative firing is frequently observed. Coronary evaluation should be considered when targeting the outflow tract.