Introduction: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) remains the cornerstone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). PVI using cryoballoon (CB) technology has emerged as a standard procedure in many centers. Recently, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been introduced and used to achieve PVI. First data show high acute and favorable long‐term outcomes. So far, data comparing these new “single shot” devices are sparse. We sought to compare procedural and outcome data for first time PFA users versus CB in patients undergoing de novo PVI. Furthermore, potentially postprocedural discomfort and affection of autonomic ganglia were assessed.Methods and Results: A retrospective analysis and comparison of all de novo PVIs with PFA and CB was performed. Furthermore, PFA PVI learning curve was evaluated. During follow‐up, repeat outpatient visits and Holter electrocardiogram were performed to analyze arrhythmia‐free survival. Discomfort analysis was obtained by prescribed analgesic medication within first 48 h after PVI. Potential changes in heart rate (HR) between baseline and at 3‐month follow‐up were evaluated. A total of 108 patients (54 PFA and 54 CB; PFA; 33 (30%) female) with paroxysmal and persistent AF were analyzed. Type of AF was comparable (Patients suffering from PAF: PFA: 16 (30%), CB: 17 (31%), p = 1.0). In 107 (99%) patients, successful PVI was achieved. Transient phrenic palsy omitted complete PVI in one CB patient. A trend for a shorter overall procedure duration was observed in the PFA group (PFA: 64.5 ± 17.5 min; CB: 73.0 ± 24.8 min; p = 0.07). Excluding LA mapping time (first 14 cases), procedure time was significantly shorter using PFA (PFA: 58.0 ± 12.5 min, CB: 73.0 ± 24.8 min, p = 0.0001). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer for PFA (PFA: 15.3 ± 4.7 min, CB: 12.3 ± 5.3 min; p = 0.001), but significantly less contrast medium was used (PFA: 12 ± 6 mL; CB: 51 ± 29 mL, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis of the PFA group revealed a significant shortening of procedure duration over time (first tertile: 72.7 ± 13.5 min, second tertile: 67.3 ± 21.7 min, third tertile: 53.4 ± 9.8 min, first vs. third tertile p < 0.0001). Two cardiac tamponades occurred in the PFA group (p = 0.495), of which one was most likely related to complex transseptal puncture. In the first 48 h after PVI, the number of prescribed analgesics due to postprocedural pain was equal between both groups (PFA: 7 (13%) patients, CB: 10 (19%) patients, p = 0.598). After a FU of 273 ± 129 days, 35 of 47 patients (74%) after PFA and 36 of 50 patients (72%) after CB PVI were free of any atrial arrhythmia (HR: 0.98, p = 0.88). Only in the PFA group, a significant increase in HR 3 months after PVI was observed (pre‐PVI: 61 ± 8 beats/min, post‐PVI: 65 ± 9 beats/min, p = 0.008).Conclusion: The new PFA technology is equally effective and safe as compared to CB for complete PVI with potentially shorter procedure time and significantly less contrast medium. However, AF recurrence rates after PFA PVI seem to be comparable to CB PVI.

Background: The newly introduced nonthermal pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising technology to achieve fast pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with high acute success rates and good safety features. However, previous studies have shown that very high power short duration ablation (VHPSD) is also highly effective and fast to achieve PVI with potentially less arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional radiofrequency ablation. Data comparing PFA to VHPSD‐PVI is lacking.Objective: This study compared procedural and outcome data for PFA‐PVI to VHPSD‐PVI in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (PAF/persAF).Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing de novo PVI (PFA or VHPSD) were included in this analysis. For PFA‐PVI a pentaspline 20 electrode catheter was used. For VHPSD‐PVI an enhanced irrigated catheter with a power setting of 70 W/7 s (70 W/5 s at posterior wall) was employed in conjunction with electro‐anatomical mapping. All procedures were performed in deep analgo‐sedation.Results: A total of n = 114 patients (n = 57[50%] PFA, n = 17[30%] PAF; n = 40[70%] persAF) were included in this analysis. PVI was successful in all patients. The PFA group revealed a significantly shorter procedure duration (65 ± 17 min vs. 95 ± 23 min, p < 0.01) but longer fluoroscopy time (PFA 15 ± 5 min and VHPSD 12 ± 3 min; p < 0.001). At follow‐up after median 125 days (interquartile range: 109–162) n = 46 PFA (80.7%) and n = 44 VHPSD pts (77.2%) were free from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure (p = 0.819).Two tamponades occurred in the PFA while in VHPSD two pts suffered groin bleedings. One clinically nonsignificant PV stenosis occurred in the VHPSD group.Conclusion: Pulsed‐field ablation and VHPSD‐PVI seem to be highly effective and safe to achieve PVI in the setting of PAF and persAF with comparable arrhythmia‐free survival. However, procedure duration for PFA PVI is significantly shorter and therefore may be of potential benefit. Compared to PFA VHPSD‐PVI might ensure information on left atrial substrate allowing to target concomitant secondary tachycardias.

Aims: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are at high risk for ventricular tachycardia (VT), and data on VT ablation in patients with LVAD are scarce. This multicentre registry assessed the mechanism of VT, procedural parameters, and outcome of VT ablation in patients with LVAD (NCT06063811). Methods and results: Data of patients with LVAD referred for VT ablation at nine tertiary care centres were collected retrospectively. Parameters included VT mechanisms, procedural data, VT recurrence, and mortality. Overall, 69 patients (90% male, mean age 60.7 ± 8.4 years) undergoing 72 ablation procedures were included. Most procedures were conducted after intensification of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment (18/72; 25%) or a prior combination of ≥2 AADs (31/72; 43%). Endocardial low-voltage areas were detected in all patients. The predominant VT mechanism was scar-related re-entry (76/96 VTs; 79%), and 19/96 VTs (20%) were related to the LVAD cannula. Non-inducibility of any VT was achieved in 28/72 procedures (39%). No LVAD-related complication was observed. The extent of endocardial scar was associated with VT recurrence. The median follow-up was 283 days (interquartile range 70–587 days). A total of 3/69 patients were lost to follow-up, 10/69 (14%) were transplanted, 26/69 (38%) died, and 16/69 (23%) patients were free from VT. Conclusion: Although often a last resort, VT ablation in patients with LVAD is feasible and safe when performed in experienced centres. These patients suffer from a high scar burden, and cardiomyopathy-associated rather than cannula-related scar seems to be the dominant substrate. Ventricular tachycardia recurrence is high despite extensive treatment, and the overall prognosis is limited.

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a first-line treatment option for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) are commonly used modalities. Recent studies demonstrated the superiority and potential benefits of very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) RFA using 70 W compared to conventional RFA (<50 W). Prospective randomized data comparing vHPSD RFA with 70 W with the frequently used CBA in the setting of PAF are lacking. Methods and results: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority trial involving 170 patients undergoing de novo PVI for PAF. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo vHPSD RFA or to receive CBA. The composite primary endpoint consisted of (i) any atrial arrhythmia, (ii) new antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) onset, and (iii) re-ablation during 1 year after index procedure. The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 10% lower 1-year event-free survival rate in vHPSD compared to CBA (delta = −0.1). A total of 170 patients with symptomatic PAF were enrolled and assigned to undergo de novo PVI, with 84 receiving vHPSD and 86 undergoing CBA. The overall study population had a mean age of 65 ± 11 years and included 50.6% women. For vHPSD PVI a 70 W/7 s anterior and 70 W/5 s posterior protocol including 3D mapping was used. Cryoballoon ablation was performed as usual. Successful PVI was achieved in all patients. Overall procedure time for vHPSD was significantly longer (81.1 ± 20.0 vs. 67.7 ± 17.2 min; P < 0.001). However, the mere ablation time was comparable (39.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.7 ± 14.5 min; P = 0.285). Fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast medium were significantly lower for vHPSD PVI (9.2 ± 3.6 vs. 10.5 ± 4.3 min; P = 0.031; 15.5 ± 5.8 vs. 43.1 ± 30.0 mL; P < 0.001). Complication rates were comparable between groups. One pulmonary vein stenosis occurred after vHPSD. Three pericardial effusions and two transient ischaemic attack were reported after CBA. After a median follow-up of 367 days, 73.8% [n = 62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 63.1–82.8%] of patients in the vHPSD PVI group and 81.4% (n = 70, 95% CI: 71.6–89.0%) in the CBA group remained free of any event. Non-inferiority of vHPSD PVI compared to CBA PVI could not be demonstrated, with a difference of −0.076 [95% CI: (−0.201 to 0.049)] in event-free survival rates off AADs, as the 95% CI includes the delta of −0.1. Conclusion: In this randomized non-inferiority trial comparing vHPSD RFA to CBA for PVI in patients with PAF, non-inferiority of vHPSD RFA could not be shown. Both methods showed comparable safety outcome with a shorter procedure time for CBA.