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: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a new, non-thermal ablation modality for pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The multi-centre EUropean Real World Outcomes with Pulsed Field AblatiOn in Patients with Symptomatic AtRIAl Fibrillation (EU-PORIA) registry sought to determine the safety, efficacy, and learning curve characteristics for the pentaspline, multi-electrode PFA catheter. Methods and results: All-comer AF patients from seven high-volume centres were consecutively enrolled. Procedural and follow-up data were collected. Learning curve effects were analysed by operator ablation experience and primary ablation modality. In total, 1233 patients (61% male, mean age 66 ± 11years, 60% paroxysmal AF) were treated by 42 operators. In 169 patients (14%), additional lesions outside the PVs were performed, most commonly at the posterior wall (n = 127). Median procedure and fluoroscopy times were 58 (interquartile range: 40–87) and 14 (9–21) min, respectively, with no differences due to operator experience. Major complications occurred in 21/1233 procedures (1.7%) including pericardial tamponade (14; 1.1%) and transient ischaemic attack or stroke (n = 7; 0.6%), of which one was fatal. Prior cryoballoon users had less complication. At a median follow-up of 365 (323–386) days, the Kaplan–Meier estimate of arrhythmia-free survival was 74% (80% for paroxysmal and 66% for persistent AF). Freedom from arrhythmia was not influenced by operator experience. In 149 (12%) patients, a repeat procedure was performed due to AF recurrence and 418/584 (72%) PVs were durably isolated. Conclusion: The EU-PORIA registry demonstrates a high single-procedure success rate with an excellent safety profile and short procedure times in a real-world, all-comer AF patient population.

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.

Background: Real‐life data on efficacy and safety of pulsed‐field ablation (PFA) using the pentaspline multi‐electrode catheter in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is still scarce. Objective: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of PFA in patients with persistent AF. Methods: Data from early commercial use across seven European centers were collected in a registry. To confirm the efficacy and safety of extra pulmonary vein (PV) ablation, patients were categorized into two groups: those undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone and those receiving additional ablation. Procedural and follow‐up data were collected. Results: The study included 448 patients (347 PVI only, 101 PVI + α ). In the PVI + α group, extra PV ablation included left atrial posterior wall isolation (87%), mitral isthmus ablation (37%), and cavo‐tricuspid isthmus ablation (3%). At 1‐year follow‐up, the PVI only group showed significantly fewer atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrences compared to PVI + α group (69% vs. 56%, p = 0.013). While AF recurrence did not significantly differ (25% vs. 28%, p = 0.713), PVI + α group had a significantly higher atrial tachycardia recurrence (8% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). Major complications occurred in 2.0% versus 1.0% (PVI only vs. PVI + α ), including pericardial tamponade (6 vs. 0; p = 0.345) and stroke (1 vs. 1; p = 0.400). Conclusions: PVI plus extra PV ablation using a pentaspline PFA catheter is associated with a higher incidence of atrial tachycardia recurrences. For persistent AF, a simpler approach of performing only PVI may be more effective.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of early ablation in preventing the progression of atrial fibrillation (AF). Clinical practice has reflected this shift in AF management and no longer requires patients to fail antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) before receiving ablation. However, there is limited evidence on outcomes with pulsed field ablation (PFA) as a first-line therapy. Examination of real-world data may shed light on clinical practices and the effectiveness of PFA with and without a prior history of AAD usage. METHODS: European Real World Outcomes with Pulsed Field Ablation is an all-comer AF registry enrolling consecutive patients treated with the pentaspline PFA catheter at 7 high-volume centers in Europe. This subanalysis evaluates patients with a history of class I/III AAD use versus those with no documented history of class I/III AAD use (first-line patients). Patients with incomplete AAD history, long-standing persistent AF, and those undergoing a repeat ablation procedure were excluded. Patients were treated and followed based on institutional standard of care. Any episode of atrial tachycardia or AF lasting longer than 30 s was considered an arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: Of 1233 patients enrolled in European real world outcomes with pulsed field ablation, 1091 met the inclusion criteria (mean age, 66 years; 40% females; and persistent AF, 36%). Pulmonary vein isolation-only was used in 90% of the patients, and 10% received extra-PV ablation. Ablation as the first-line approach was chosen in 589 patients, and 502 patients had prior class I/III AAD use. In the first-line PFA group, paroxysmal AF was more frequent (68% versus 59%; P <0.001), and pulmonary vein isolation-only was more frequent (93% versus 86%; P <0.001). At 1-year follow-up, freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia recurrence was similar in the ablation-first versus the ablation after failed AAD group (78% versus 74%, respectively; P =0.076). CONCLUSION: In this large real-world PFA registry, freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia recurrence after 1 year was similar in patients undergoing PFA as a first-line treatment and those with prior failed AAD therapy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05823818.