Search

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Turagam has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific. Dr Nair has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Doshi has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Valderrabano has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Abbott. Dr Natale has served as a consultant for Abbott, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific. Dr Halperin has served as a consultant for Abbott and Bayer HealthCare. Dr Mansour has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy has served as an unpaid consultant for Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reddy has served as a consultant to Boston Scientific and Abbott; and unrelated to this manuscript, he has served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Anumana, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, APN Health, Append Medical, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EP Frontiers, Farapulse-Boston Scientific, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Laminar Medical, LuxMed, Medlumics, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Pulse Biosciences, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath; and unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for Adagio Medical, AtriAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Philips; and has equity in Atraverse, DRS Vascular, Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Surecor, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: During pulsed field ablation (PFA), electrode-tissue proximity optimizes lesion quality. A novel "single-shot" map-and-ablate spherical multielectrode PFA array catheter that is able to verify electrode-tissue contact was recently studied in a first-in-human trial of atrial fibrillation (AF)., Objective: The aim of this study was to report lesion durability data, safety, and 12-month effectiveness outcomes., Methods: The spherical PFA catheter, an all-in-one mapping and ablation system, was used to render anatomy and to deliver biphasic pulses (ungated 1.7 kV pulses; ∼40 seconds/application). Ablation sites included pulmonary veins (PVs) and, in selected patients, posterior wall and mitral isthmus. Follow-up was invasive remapping at ∼3 months, electrocardiograms, Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months, and symptomatic and scheduled transtelephonic monitoring. The primary and secondary efficacy end points were acute PV isolation (PVI), PVI durability, and atrial arrhythmia recurrence., Results: In the 48-patient AF cohort (paroxysmal, 48%; persistent, 52%), lesion sets included PVI (n = 48; 1.2 applications/PV), posterior wall (n = 20; 3.6 applications/posterior wall), and mitral isthmus (n = 11; 2.9 applications/mitral isthmus). Lesions were acutely successful for all 187 of 187 PVs (100%), 20 of 20 posterior walls (100%), and 10 of 11 mitral isthmuses (91%). Pulse delivery time, left atrial catheter dwell time, and procedure time were 61.5 ± 32.8 seconds, 53.9 ± 26.5 minutes, and 87.8 ± 29.8 minutes, respectively. Remapping (43/48 patients [89.5%]) revealed that 158 of 169 PVs (93.5%) were durably isolated. The only complication was a drug-responsive pericarditis. The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from atrial arrhythmia were 84.2% (paroxysmal AF) and 80.0% (persistent AF)., Conclusion: The single-shot spherical array PFA catheter can safely achieve durable lesions, translating into good clinical efficacy., Competing Interests: Disclosures Vivek Reddy reports receiving consulting fees (and equity) from Kardium Inc; and unrelated to this manuscript, he also serves as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Anumana, Apama Medical–Boston Scientific, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics–Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse–Boston Scientific, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Keystone Heart, Laminar Medical, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera–Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, Valcare; unrelated to this work, he has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adagio Medical, Append Medical, AtriAN, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cairdac, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Pulse Biosciences; and unrelated to this work, he has equity in Atraverse, DRS Vascular, Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Soundcath, Surecor, and Vizaramed. Petr Neuzil: grant support from Kardium Inc. Jacob Koruth: grant support and stock options from Kardium/Affera-Medtronic/Pulse Biosciences and Field Medical; consultant/grant support from Cardiofocus; consultant for Biosense Webster, Abbott, Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Mohit Turagam: consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Alta Thera; speaking honorarium: Sanofi, Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has proven to be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. In a minority of patients, inadequate seal may result in persistent peridevice flow and inability of the appendage to fully thrombose, thereby representing a potential source for thromboembolism., Objective: The purpose of this study was to study the use of endovascular coiling of the appendage to address persistent peridevice leak in patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device., Methods: This is a retrospective single-center analysis involving patients who underwent placement of a LAAC device and returned for endovascular coiling to address persistent device leak between 2018 and 2020. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique., Results: Patients (N = 20) were identified with a mean leak size of 3.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 2.5-7 mm), all of whom had a non-thrombosed appendage. Acute procedural success was achieved in 95% of patients. Complete or significant reduction in flow beyond the LAAC device was achieved in 61% and 33% of patients, respectively. The 1 procedure-related adverse event was a pericardial effusion before coil deployment, requiring percutaneous drainage., Conclusion: The clinical impact of residual peridevice leak post-Watchman implantation is a matter of continuing investigation. However, appendage coiling represents a new therapeutic tool to address this potential source for thromboembolism. Further studies should address the clinical impact of this technique, including the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after successful coiling., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is an important potential complication of PV isolation using thermal modalities such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an alternative energy that causes nonthermal myocardial cell death., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of PFA vs RFA on the incidence and severity of PV narrowing or stenosis., Methods: Data were analyzed from 4 paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation trials using either PFA or RFA; because of absent CT scans or poor computed tomography scan quality, 73 of 153 patients (47.7%) were excluded. Baseline and 3-month cardiac computed tomography scans were reconstructed into 3-dimensional images, and the long and short axes of the PV ostia were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed in a randomized blinded manner by 2 physicians., Results: A total of 299 PVs from 80 patients after either PFA (n = 37) or RFA (n = 43) were enrolled. PV ostial diameters decreased significantly less with PFA than with RFA (% change; long axis: 0.9% ± 8.5% vs -11.9% ± 16.3%; P < .001 and short axis: 3.4% ± 12.7% vs -12.9% ± 18.5%; P < .001). After a combined quantitative/qualitative analysis, mild (30%-49%), moderate (50%-69%), or severe (70%-100%) PV narrowing was observed, respectively, in 9.0% (15 of 166), 1.8% (3 of 166), and 1.2% (2 of 166) of PVs in the RFA cohort but in none of the PVs after PFA (P < .001). Overall, PV narrowing/stenosis was present in 0% and 0% vs 12.0% and 32.5% of PVs and patients who underwent PFA and RFA, respectively., Conclusion: This study indicates that unlike after RFA, the incidence and severity of PV narrowing/stenosis after PV isolation is virtually eliminated with PFA., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Single-chamber leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been shown to be an effective alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers (CTPs), but their benefit in the context of cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope (CI-VVS) is unknown., Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LP compared with dual-chamber CTP for CI-VVS., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study comparing patients who received LP or dual-chamber CTP for drug-refractory CI-VVS. CI-VVS was diagnosed clinically and supported by cardiac monitoring and head-up tilt table testing. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from syncope during follow-up. Secondary endpoints included device efficacy and safety estimated by device-related major and minor adverse events (AEs)., Results: Seventy-two patients (24 LP, 48 CTP; age 32 ± 5.5 years; 90% female; syncope frequency 7.6 ± 3.4 per year) were included. At 1 year, 91% of patients (22/24) in the LP group and 94% of patients (43/48) in the CTP group met the primary efficacy endpoint (P = .7). Device efficacy endpoint was met in 92% of the LP group and 98% of the CTP group (P = .2). Early major AEs occurred in 2 of 24 in the LP group and 3 of 48 in the CTP group (P = .4). Late major AEs occurred in 0 of 24 in the LP group and 2 of 48 in the CTP group (P = 1)., Conclusion: In patients with CI-VVS, single-chamber LP demonstrated equivalent efficacy in reducing syncopal events compared to dual-chamber CTP, with a similar safety profile., (Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (pLAAC) emerged as an option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible for long-term anticoagulation. Real-world data on pLAAC's in-hospital and 30-day readmission measures are limited., Objective: We sought to report the nationwide incidence of the above outcomes using 2016 claims data., Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample for in-hospital outcomes and Nationwide Readmissions Database for readmissions. We identified hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and pLAAC procedure by using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and compared the outcomes mentioned above between the endocardial and epicardial cohorts. Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.2., Results: Among 5480 pLAAC procedures (endocardial: 5145; epicardial: 335), the in-hospital mortality was 0.3%. Endocardial left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) had lower complications (8.5% vs 25.4%; P < .001) and shorter length of stay median [interquartile range] 1 [1-1] day vs 2 [1-3] days; P < .001) but higher hospitalization cost (24.13 [18.45-30.17] × 1000 dollars vs 21.21 [14.03-27.86] × 1000 dollars; P = .016). The most common complications include pericardial (endocardial vs epicardial: 3% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and renal failure (1.4% vs 6.0%; P = .004). Epicardial LAAC had higher 30-day unplanned readmissions (19.5% vs 8.3%; P = .001), with the most common reason being pericarditis and/or effusion (33.9%)., Conclusion: Endocardial LAAC had lower complications and 30-day readmissions but higher hospitalization cost. Although epicardial LAAC showed higher complications, given recent improvements in its technique, and postprocedural care demonstrated a significant reduction in pericardial complications, more contemporary data comparing these outcomes are needed., (Copyright © 2019 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation and permanent pacing is an established strategy for rate control in the management of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Leadless pacemakers (LPs) can overcome some of the short-term and long-term limitations of conventional transvenous pacemakers (CTPs)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility and safety of LP with those of single-chamber CTP in patients with AF undergoing AVN ablation., Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study of patients undergoing AVN ablation and pacemaker implantation (LP vs single-chamber CTP) between February 1, 2014 and November 15, 2016. The primary efficacy end points were acceptable sensing (R wave amplitude ≥5.0 mV) and pacing thresholds (≤2.0 V at 0.4 ms) at follow-up. Safety end points included device-related major and minor (early <1 month, late >1 month) adverse events., Results: A total of 127 patients with LP (n = 60) and CTP (n = 67) were studied. The median follow-up was 12 months (interquartile range 12-18 months). Ninety-five percent of the LP group and 97% of the CTP group met the primary efficacy end point at follow-up (57 of 60 vs 65 of 67; P = .66). There was 1 major adverse event (loss of pacing and sensing) in the LP group and 2 (lead dislodgement) in the CTP group (1 of 60 vs 2 of 67; P = 1.00). There were 6 minor adverse events (5 early and 1 late) in the LP group and 3 (early) in the CTP group (6 of 60 vs 3 of 67; P = .30)., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the feasibility and safety of LP compared with CTP in patients undergoing AVN ablation for AF., (Copyright © 2018 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)