Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation.

Aims Left atrial appendage closure is a non-pharmacological alternative for stroke prevention in high-risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The objective of the multicentre EWOLUTION registry was to obtain clinical data on procedural success and complications, and long-term patient outcomes, including bleeding and incidence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Here, we report on the peri-procedural outcomes of up to 30 days. Methods and results Baseline/implant data are available for 1021 subjects. Subjects in the study were at high risk of stroke (average CHADS ₂ score: 2.8 ± 1.3, CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc: 4.5 ± 1.6) and moderate-to-high risk of bleeding (average HAS-BLED score: 2.3 ± 1.2). Almost half of the subjects (45.4%) had a history of TIA, ischaemic stroke, or haemorrhagic stroke; 62% of patients were deemed unsuitable for novel oral anticoagulant by their physician. The device was successfully deployed in 98.5% of patients with no flow or minimal residual flow achieved in 99.3% of implanted patients. Twenty-eight subjects experienced 31 serious adverse events (SAEs) within 1 day of the procedure. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.7%. The most common SAE occurring within 30 days of the procedure was major bleeding requiring transfusion. Incidence of SAEs within 30 days was significantly lower for subjects deemed to be ineligible for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) compared with those eligible for OAT (6.5 vs. 10.2%, P = 0.042). Conclusion Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device has a high success rate in complete LAAC with low peri-procedural risk, even in a population with a higher risk of stroke and bleeding, and multiple co-morbidities. Improvement in implantation techniques has led to a reduction of peri-procedural complications previously limiting the net clinical benefit of the procedure.

Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion with WATCHMAN has emerged as viable alternative to vitamin K antagonists in randomized controlled trials. EWOLUTION was designed to provide data in routine practice from a prospective multicenter registry. A total of 1025 patients scheduled for a WATCHMAN implant were prospectively and sequentially enrolled at 47 centers. Indication for LAA closure was based on European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Follow-up and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were performed per local practice. The baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 ± 1.6; the mean age was 73.4 ± 9 years; previous transient ischemic attack/ischemic stroke was present in 312 (30.5%), 155 (15.1%) had previous hemorrhagic stroke, and 320 (31.3%) had a history of major bleeding; and 750 (73%) were deemed unsuitable for oral anticoagulation therapy. WATCHMAN implant succeeded in 1005 (98.5%) of patients, without leaks >5 mm in 1002 (99.7%) with at least 1 TEE follow-up in 875 patients (87%). Antiplatelet therapy was used in 784 (83%), while vitamin K antagonists were used in only 75 (8%). At 1 year, mortality was 98 (9.8%), reflecting the advanced age and comorbidities in this population. Device thrombus was observed in 28 patients at routine TEE (3.7%) and was not correlated with the drug regimen (P = .14). Ischemic stroke rate was 1.1% (relative risk 84% vs estimated historical data); the major bleeding rate was 2.6% and was predominantly (2.3%) nonprocedure/device related. LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device has a high implant and sealing success. This method of stroke risk reduction appears to be safe and effective with an ischemic stroke rate as low as 1.1%, even though 73% of patients had a contraindication to and were not using oral anticoagulation.

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion with WATCHMAN has emerged as viable alternative to vitamin K antagonists in randomized controlled trials. Evaluating real-life clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology was designed to collect prospective multicenter outcomes of thromboembolic events, bleeding, and mortality for patients implanted with a WATCHMAN in routine daily practice. Methods: One thousand twenty patients with a WATCHMAN implant procedure were prospectively followed in 47 centers. Left atrial appendage occlusion indication was based on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Follow-up and imaging were performed per local practice up to a median follow-up of 2 years. Results: Included population was old (age 73.4±8.9 years), at high risk for stroke (311 prior ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and 153 prior hemorrhagic stroke) and bleeding (318 prior major bleeding), with CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc score ≥5 in 49%, hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly ≥3 in 40% and oral anticoagulation contraindication in 72%. During follow-up, 161 patients (16.4%) died, 22 strokes were observed (1.3/100 patient-years, 83% reduction versus historic data), and 47 major nonprocedural bleeding events (2.7/100 patient-years, 46% reduction versus historic data). Stroke and bleeding rates were consistently lower than historic data in those with prior ischemic (−76% and −41%) or hemorrhagic (−81% and 67%) stroke and prior bleeding (−85% and −30%). Lowest bleeding rates were seen in patients with early discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Patients with early discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy showed lower bleeding rates, while they were highest for those with prior bleeding. Device thrombus was observed in 34 patients (4.1%) and was not correlated to drug regimen during follow-up ( P =0.28). Conclusions: During the complete 2-year follow-up of Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology, patients with a WATCHMAN left atrial appendage occlusion device had consistently low rates of stroke and nonprocedural bleeding, although most were contraindicated to oral anticoagulation and used only single antiplatelet therapy or nothing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01972282.

The first edition of Europace journal in 1999 came right around the time of the landmark publication of the electrophysiologists from Bordeaux, establishing how elimination of ectopic activity from the pulmonary veins (PVs) resulted in a marked reduction of atrial fibrillation (AF). The past 25 years have seen an incredible surge in scientific interest to develop new catheters and energy sources to optimize durability and safety of ablation, as well as study the mechanisms for AF and devise ablation strategies. While ablation in the beginning was performed with classic 4 mm tip catheters that emitted radiofrequency (RF) energy to create tissue lesions, this evolved to using irrigation and contact force (CF) measurement while increasing power. Also, so-called single-shot devices were developed with balloons and arrays to create larger contiguous lesions, and energy sources changed from RF current to cryogenic ablation and more recently pulsed field ablation with electrical current. Although PV ablation has remained the basis for every AF ablation, it was soon recognized that this was not enough to cure all patients, especially those with non-paroxysmal AF. Standardized approaches for additional ablation targets have been used but have not been satisfactory in all patients so far. This led to highly technical mapping systems that are meant to unravel the drivers for the maintenance of AF. In the following sections, the development of energies, strategies, and tools is described with a focus on the contribution of Europace to publish the outcomes of studies that were done during the past 25 years.

Background—: The optimal ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Methods and Results—: This multicentre randomized study compared circumferential pulmonary vein ablation+linear ablation (control arm) versus circumferential pulmonary vein ablation+linear ablation+complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation (CFAE arm) in patients with persistent AF. Circumferential pulmonary vein ablation was performed followed by roof and mitral isthmus ablation, before CFAE ablation in the CFAE arm. Ablation strategy was maintained at the first redo procedure. Sixty-five patients were recruited in each arm. The mean age was 61±10 years, 75% were men, median AF duration was 2 years, 42% had long-lasting persistent AF, 68% had associated cardiovascular disease, mean left atrial dimension was 46±6 mm, and median CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc score was 2. Ablation and procedure times were significantly longer in the CFAE arm (70±20 versus 55±17; 201±35 versus 152±45 minutes; P <0.005). After a mean follow-up of 35±5 months, single-procedural success off antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months (CFAE: 30/65 [46%] versus control: 37/65 [57%]; P =0.29) and multiprocedural success (CFAE: 51/65 [78%] versus control: 52/65 [80%]; P =1.0) were not significantly different. At the first redo procedure, patients in the CFAE arm had a higher incidence of organized atrial tachycardia/flutter (24/33 [73%] versus 11/31 [35%]; P =0.005) and gap-related macro–re-entrant flutter (8/33[24%] versus 1/31[3%]; P =0.03). Early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was an independent predictor of late recurrence. Conclusions—: CFAE ablation did not confer incremental benefit when performed in addition to circumferential pulmonary vein ablation and linear ablation. It was associated with a higher incidence of gap-related flutter. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01711047.