Sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention in cardiomyopathies such as hypertrophic (HCM), dilated (DCM), non-dilated left ventricular (NDLCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) remains a crucial but complex clinical challenge, especially among younger populations. Accurate risk stratification is hampered by the variability in phenotypic expression and genetic heterogeneity inherent in these conditions. This article explores the multifaceted strategies for preventing SCD across a spectrum of cardiomyopathies and emphasizes the integration of clinical evaluations, genetic insights, and advanced imaging techniques such as cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in assessing SCD risks. Advanced imaging, particularly CMR, not only enhances our understanding of myocardial architecture but also serves as a cornerstone for identifying at-risk patients. The integration of new research findings with current practices is essential for advancing patient care and improving survival rates among those at the highest risk of SCD. This review calls for ongoing research to refine risk stratification models and enhance the predictive accuracy of both clinical and imaging techniques in the management of cardiomyopathies.

Background: Low-voltage area (LVA) ablation, in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), has been proposed as a new strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but clinical trials have shown conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of LVA ablation in patient undergoing AF ablation (PROSPERO-registered CRD42024537696). Methods: Randomized clinical trials investigating the role of LVA ablation in addition to PVI in patients with AF were searched on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 22 April 2024. Primary outcome was atrial arrhythmia recurrence after the first AF ablation procedure. Secondary endpoints included procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and procedure-related complication rate. Sensitivity analysis including only patients with LVA demonstration at mapping and multiple subgroups analyses were also performed. Results: 1547 patients from 7 studies were included. LVA ablation in addition to PVI reduced atrial arrhythmia recurrence (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.81, p < 0.001) with a number needed to treat to prevent recurrence of 10. No difference in procedure time (mean difference [MD] −5.32 min, 95% CI −19.01–8.46 min, p = 0.45), fluoroscopy time (MD −1.10 min, 95% CI −2.48–0.28 min, p = 0.12) and complication rate (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40–1.61, p = 0.54) was observed. Consistent results were demonstrated when considering only patients with LVA during mapping and in prespecified subgroups for AF type (paroxysmal vs. persistent), multicentric vs. monocentric trial, and ablation strategy in control group. Conclusions: In patients with AF, ablation of LVAs in addition to PVI reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence without a significant increase in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or complication rate.

Aims: A personalized pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) approach aimed at ablation index (AI) titration according to multidetector computed tomography-derived left atrial wall thickness (LAWT) maps reported high effectiveness and efficiency outcomes for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) ablation. To date, no randomized trials have compared this approach with the standard CLOSE protocol. This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial sought to compare a LAWT-guided PVI with CLOSE protocol-based for PeAF (NCT05396534). Methods and results: Consecutive patients referred for first-time PeAF ablation were randomized on a 1:1 basis. In the by-LAWT arm, the AI was titrated according to local LAWT, and the ablation line was personalized to avoid the thickest regions at the pulmonary vein antrum. In the CLOSE arm, LAWT information was not available to the operator; the ablation was performed according to the CLOSE study settings: AI is ≥400 at the posterior wall and ≥550 at the anterior wall. Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmias recurrence. Secondary endpoints were the major complication rate, procedure time, radiofrequency time, and first-pass PVI rate. One hundred fifty-six patients were included. At 12 month follow-up, no significant difference occurred in atrial arrhythmia-free survival between groups (P = 0.50). In the by-LAWT group, a significant reduction in procedure time (60.5 vs. 80.0 min; P < 0.01) and RF time (14.4 vs. 28.6 min; P < 0.01) was observed. No difference was observed regarding first-pass PVI (P = 0.72) and the major complication rate (P = 0.99). Conclusions: The PeAF-by-LAWT trial is the first prospective randomized study to demonstrate that a personalized LAWT-guided PVI for PeAF ablation is non-inferior to the standard CLOSE protocol in terms of arrhythmia-free survival while significantly improving procedural efficiency. The study was not powered to detect differences in safety outcomes.

Aims: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to conventional energy sources (ES) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, comparative data between PFA and other ES—such as radiofrequency (RFA), cryoballoon (CBA), and laser balloon ablation (LBA)—remain limited. This network meta-analysis (CRD420251054760) aimed to compare outcomes of PFA vs. thermal ES for AF ablation. Methods and results: A systematic network meta-analysis using PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE from inception to March 2026 was performed. Randomized controlled trials comparing different ES in first-attempt pulmonary vein isolation were included. Data extraction was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the recurrence of any sustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) at 12-month follow-up. Safety and efficiency outcomes were also compared among groups. We included 18 studies, encompassing 4162 patients. Compared to PFA, thermal ablation technologies showed a higher risk of ATA recurrence at 12-month follow-up (RFA: RR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.10–2.00); CBA: 1.43 (95% CI 1.07–1.92); LBA: RR 1.29 (CI 95% 0.84–1.98)). PFA exhibited the lowest procedural time among transcatheter ES, whereas RFA displayed a significantly lower fluoroscopy time. No significant differences were recorded for major periprocedural complications. A subgroup analysis restricted to studies involving only paroxysmal AF patients, as well as those employing contemporary technologies, yielded consistent findings. Conclusion: The present data indicate that, in patients undergoing a first transcatheter AF ablation, PFA may be associated with favourable efficacy and procedural efficiency compared with traditional thermal technologies, while showing a broadly comparable safety profile.