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.

Aims: Initial clinical studies of pulsed field ablation (PFA) to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) indicated a >90% durability rate of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, these studies were largely conducted in single centres and involved a limited number of operators. We aimed to describe the electrophysiological findings and outcomes in patients undergoing repeat ablation after an initial PF ablation for AF. Methods and results: In the MANIFEST-REDO study, we investigated patients who underwent repeat ablation due to clinical recurrence—AF or atrial tachycardia (AT)—following first-ever PVI with a pentaspline PFA catheter (Farawave, Boston Scientific Inc.). At 22 centres, 427 patients (age 64 ± 11 years; 37% female) were included. Of note, the recurrent arrhythmia leading to the repeat ablation was paroxysmal AF (51%), persistent AF (30%), or AT (19%). At the repeat procedure, the PV reconnection rates were 30% (left superior pulmonary vein), 28% (left inferior pulmonary vein), 33% (right superior pulmonary vein), and 32% (right inferior pulmonary vein). In 45% of patients, all PVs were durably isolated at the beginning of the repeat procedure, with the previous use of any imaging or mapping modality being univariately associated with durable PVI. After a post-redo follow-up period of 284 (90–366) days, the primary effectiveness endpoint (freedom from documented AF/AT lasting ≥30 s after 3-month blanking without class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs or symptoms) was achieved in 65% of patients, with significant differences between groups (PAF 65% vs. PersAF 56% vs. AT 76%; P = 0.04). Persistent AF as recurrent arrhythmia after the initial PFA ablation predicted AT/AF recurrence after repeat ablation [hazard ratio 1.241 (95% confidence interval 1.534–1.005); P = 0.045]. The procedural complication rate was 2.8%. Conclusion: In repeat procedures for AF/AT performed after an index procedure with PFA for AF, PV reconnections are not uncommon. Repeat procedures can be performed safely and with an acceptable subsequent success rate.

Aims: Very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) via temperature-controlled ablation (TCA) is a new modality to perform radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), conceivably at the cost of a narrower safety margin towards the oesophagus. In this two-centre trial, we aimed to determine the safety of vHPSD-based PVI with specific emphasis on silent oesophageal injury. Methods and results: Ninety consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) underwent vHPSD-PVI (90 W, 3–4 s, TCA) using the QDOT MICRO catheter, in conjunction with the nGEN (Bad Neustadt, n = 45) or nMARQ generator (Bruges, n = 45). All patients underwent post-ablation oesophageal endoscopy. Procedural parameters and complications were recorded. A subgroup of 21 patients from Bad Neustadt underwent cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) to detect silent cerebral events (SCEs). Mean age was 67 ± 9 years, 59% patients were male, and 66% patients had paroxysmal AF. Pulmonary vein isolation was obtained in all cases after 96 ± 29 min. No steam pop, cardiac tamponade, stroke, or fistula was reported. None of the 90 patients demonstrated oesophageal ulceration (0%). Charring was not observed in the nMARQ cohort (0% vs. 11% in the nGEN group). In 5 out of 21 patients (24%), cMRI demonstrated SCE (exclusively nGEN cohort). Conclusion: Temperature-controlled vHPSD catheter ablation allows straightforward PVI without evidence of oesophageal ulcerations or symptomatic complications. Catheter tip charring and silent cerebral lesions when using the nGEN generator have led to further modification.

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency (RF) ablation is an effective treatment option for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aims to investigate the safety of high-power short duration (HPSD) with emphasis on oesophageal lesions after PVI. Consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation with HPSD (50 W; ablation index (AI)-guided; target AI 350 for posterior wall ablation, AI 450 for anterior wall ablation) using the ThermoCool SmartTouch SF catheter were included. Patients underwent post-ablation oesophageal endoscopy to detect and categorize thermal oesophageal injury (EDEL). Occurrence and risk factors of oesophageal lesions and perforating complications were analysed. A total of 1033 patients underwent AF ablation with HPSD. Of them, 953 patients (67.6 ± 9.6 years; 58% male; 43% paroxysmal AF; 68% first PVI) underwent post-procedural oesophageal endoscopy and were included in further analyses. Median procedure time was 82.8 ± 24.4 min with ablation times of 16.1 ± 9.2 min. Thermal oesophageal injury was detected in 58 patients (6%) (n = 29 Category 1 erosion, n = 29 Category 2 ulcerous). One patient developed oesophageal perforation (redo, 4th AF ablation). No patient died. Using multivariable regression models, increased total ablation time [odds ratio (OR) 1.029, P = 0.010] and history of stroke (OR 2.619, P = 0.033) were associated with increased incidence of EDEL after AF ablation, whereas increased body mass index was protective (OR 0.980, P = 0.022). Thermal oesophageal lesions occur in 6% of HPSD AF ablations. The risk for development of perforating complications seems to be low. Incidence of atrio-oesophageal fistula (0.1%) is comparable to other reported series about RF ablation approaches.