In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Background: Pulsed field ablation is a novel nonthermal cardiac ablation modality using ultra-rapid electrical pulses to cause cell death by a mechanism of irreversible electroporation. Unlike the traditional ablation energy sources, pulsed field ablation has demonstrated significant preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation, and thus avoids certain thermally mediated complications. However, its safety and effectiveness remain unknown in usual clinical care. Methods: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a retrospective, multinational, patient-level registry wherein patients at each center were prospectively included in their respective center registries. The registry included all patients undergoing postapproval treatment with a multielectrode 5-spline pulsed field ablation catheter to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) between March 1, 2021, and May 30, 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from clinical documented atrial arrhythmia (AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia) of ≥30 seconds on the basis of electrocardiographic data after a 3-month blanking period (on or off antiarrhythmic drugs). Safety outcomes included the composite of acute (7 days) major adverse events. Results: At 24 European centers (77 operators) pulsed field ablation was performed in 1568 patients with AF: age 64.5±11.5 years, female 35%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 65%/32%, CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc 2.2±1.6, median left ventricular ejection fraction 60%, and left atrial diameter 42 mm. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 99.2% of patients. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 367 (289–421) days, the 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.0%–80.0%); clinical effectiveness was more common in patients with paroxysmal AF versus persistent AF (81.6% versus 71.5%; P =0.001). Acute major adverse events occurred in 1.9% of patients. Conclusions: In this large observational registry of the postapproval clinical use of pulsed field technology to treat AF, catheter ablation using pulsed field energy was clinically effective in 78% of patients with AF.

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is increasingly used in clinical practice for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. While the susceptibility of erythrocytes to electroporation is well established, the effect of cardiac PFA technologies on hemolysis has remained underreported. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, severity, and clinical impact of PFA-induced hemolysis. METHODS: We included n=145 patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation with a pentaspline PFA catheter (biphasic, bipolar pulses of 2 kV) and n=70 patients receiving radiofrequency ablation (40–90 W) at 4 high-volume European centers. The lesion set comprised pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and pulmonary vein isolation±additional lesions for persistent atrial fibrillation. Hemolysis and renal function biomarkers were analyzed in blood samples at baseline, at the end of ablation, and 24 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups (overall mean 65.7±9.4 years; 69.3% men). The ablation procedures comprised a mean of 61.6±27.4 PFA deliveries and 26.3±15.0 minutes RF duration. Hemolysis was detected in 94.3% versus 6.8% of patients after PFA versus radiofrequency ablation ( P <0.001): PFA was associated with significantly lower haptoglobin levels (0.5±0.4 versus 1.0±0.4 g/L), while free plasma hemoglobin (592.8±330.6 versus 147.8±183.0 mg/L), bilirubin (21.3±11.3 versus 14.8±8.8 µmol/L), and LDH (lactate dehydrogenase, 352.7±115.7 versus 253.2±56.5 U/L) were significantly higher after PFA compared with radiofrequency ablation (all P <0.001). Hemolysis correlated with the number of PFA deliveries (r=0.62 [95% CI, 0.33–0.80]; P <0.001), with the highest severity occurring ≥54 PFA deliveries. After PFA, hemoglobinuria occurred in 36.4%, while creatinine increase was higher in patients with baseline glomerular filtration rate 50 mL/min (Δcrea, 27.0±103.1 versus −0.2±12.1 µmol/L; P =0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular hemolysis is a frequent finding after PFA and increases with the number of PFA deliveries. Until the clinical impact of PFA-associated hemolysis is fully elucidated, a careful titration of PFA deliveries during the ablation procedure is warranted.