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.

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) functions are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from electromagnetic fields (EMF). Data on EMI risks from new-generation electronic appliances (EA) are limited., Objective: We performed a systematic literature review on the mechanisms of EMI, current evidence, and recently published trials evaluating the effect of EMF on CIEDs from electric vehicles (EV), smartphone, and smartwatch technology and summarize its safety data., Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, were searched for in vivo studies evaluating EMF strength and incidence between CIEDs and commercial EVs, new-generation smartphones, and new-generation smartwatches., Results: A total of ten studies (three on EVs, five on smartphones, one on smartphones, one on smartphones and smartwatches) were included in our systematic review. There was no report of EMI incidence associated with EVs or smartwatches. Magnet-containing smartphones (iPhone 12) can cause EMI when placed directly over CIEDs - thereby triggering the magnet mode; otherwise, no report of EMI was observed with other positions or smartphone models., Conclusion: Current evidence suggests CIED recipients are safe from general interaction with EVs/HEVs, smartphones, and smartwatches. Strictly, results may only be applied to commercial brands or models tested in the published studies. There is limited data on EMI risk from EVs wireless charging and smartphones with MagSafe technology., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The safety and efficacy of CA for AF and left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AA) in patients with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices are lacking., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective registry that included all patients with prior LAAO who underwent catheter ablation for AF or left-sided atrial arrhythmia from January 2020-January 2023. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, device-related complications, AA recurrence, and stroke., Results: A total of 30 patients with prior LAAO were included in the analysis (mean age 75.1 ± 7.1 years old, 50% male, mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 4 ± 1.6, 46.7% paroxysmal AF, 73.3% had prior AF ablation, mean time to ablation 475 ± 365 days). 93.3% (n = 28) and 6.6% (n = 2) patients had ablation for AF (46.7% paroxysmal, 36.7% persistent, 10% long-standing persistent) and left-sided atrial tachycardia, respectively. 16.7% (n = 5) patients underwent ablation along the left atrial appendage ostium, and 3.3% (n = 1) underwent Vein of Marshall alcohol ablation. There were 3 (10%) peri-procedural complications (1 access hematoma and two pericardial effusions requiring intervention-none related to left atrial appendage ostium or alcohol ablation). During the mean follow-up of 440 ± 379 days, 40% (n = 12) patients had AA recurrence (91.6% AF, 8.3% atrial tachycardia), of which five patients needed repeat ablation, and two patients were readmitted for heart failure. There was no stroke or any device-related complications, including new peri-device leaks or device-related thrombosis in patients who had follow-up imaging studies (n = 11, 36.7%)., Conclusion: Catheter ablation for AF (including VoM alcohol ablation) in patients with prior LAAO devices is feasible and safe with favorable outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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.)

Introduction: The QDOT MICRO TM Ablation Catheter is a next-generation ablation catheter that allows for high-power ablation up to 90 watts., Methods: We aimed to assess AE associated with the QDOT MICRO TM catheter using the MAUDE database. A MAUDE database search was conducted on May 25, 2024, to capture all AEs (since FDA approval) associated with this ablation catheter., Results: A total of 302 AEs from November 23, 2022, to April 30, 2024, were reported including 148 (49%) catheter-related issues and 154 (51%) clinical complications. Among the catheter-related issues, physical catheter damage (74.3%, n = 110) was most common, followed by communication or display issue (10.8%, n = 16), irrigation issue (9.5%, n = 14), signal issue or artifact (3.4%, n = 5), and inaccurate temperature measurement (2.0%, n = 3). Regarding clinical complications, the most common AE was pericardial effusion (43.5%, n = 67), followed by char formation (11.7%, n = 18), catheter thrombosis (7.1%, n = 11), stroke (7.1%, n = 11), pericarditis (7.1%, n = 11), esophageal complications (6.5%, n = 10), phrenic nerve palsy (3.9%, n = 6), cardiac arrest (3.9%, n = 6), significant AV block (3.9%, n = 6), pulmonary vein stenosis (3.2%, n = 5), coronary artery spasm (1.3%, n = 2), and pulmonary embolism (0.6%, n = 1). There were 11 deaths (five related to esophageal complications, five related to cardiac arrest, and one related to pericardial effusion with cardiac tamponade)., Conclusion: As high-power ablation strategy with novel ablation catheters is becoming more widely utilized, operators must be aware of potential catheter-related issues and clinical complications that may arise. More data are needed to further evaluate risks of these complications to improve the catheter's safety and efficacy., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), for which pre-clinical and early-stage clinical data are suggestive of some degree of preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation without damage to adjacent structures. Here in the MANIFEST-17K study we assessed the safety of PFA by studying the post-approval use of this treatment modality. Of the 116 centers performing post-approval PFA with a pentaspline catheter, data were received from 106 centers (91.4% participation) regarding 17,642 patients undergoing PFA (mean age 64, 34.7% female, 57.8% paroxysmal AF and 35.2% persistent AF). No esophageal complications, pulmonary vein stenosis or persistent phrenic palsy was reported (transient palsy was reported in 0.06% of patients; 11 of 17,642). Major complications, reported for ~1% of patients (173 of 17,642), were pericardial tamponade (0.36%; 63 of 17,642) and vascular events (0.30%; 53 of 17,642). Stroke was rare (0.12%; 22 of 17,642) and death was even rarer (0.03%; 5 of 17,642). Unexpected complications of PFA were coronary arterial spasm in 0.14% of patients (25 of 17,642) and hemolysis-related acute renal failure necessitating hemodialysis in 0.03% of patients (5 of 17,642). Taken together, these data indicate that PFA demonstrates a favorable safety profile by avoiding much of the collateral damage seen with conventional thermal ablation. PFA has the potential to be transformative for the management of patients with AF., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF)., Objective: This study sought to assess the outcomes of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in HF., Methods: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a multicenter, patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal AF or persistent AF (PerAF). In this substudy, patients were stratified as no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (left ventricular EF of ≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly reduced EF (HFmr/rEF) (left ventricular EF of <50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30 seconds and major adverse events, respectively., Results: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n = 1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n = 87) were HFpEF, and 8.6% (n = 120) were HFmr/rEF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (P < 0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (P = >0.99). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF patients than in those with HFpEF or HFmr/rEF (79.9%, 71.3%, and 67.5%, respectively; P < 0.001) but similar between patients with HFmr/rEF and HFpEF (P = 0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HFpEF vs HFmr/rEF for those with paroxysmal AF (82.8%, 82.4%, and 71.7%, respectively; P = 0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, respectively; P = 0.14). Major adverse event rates were similar between the no-HF, HFpEF, and HFmr/rEF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively)., Conclusions: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Boston Scientific provided a grant to help fund data collection but was not otherwise involved with study design or analysis and did not have access to this manuscript before submission. Dr Turagam has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific Inc, and AltaThera and speaker honoraria from Sanofi and Medtronic. Dr Neuzil has received a grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, Development of Research Organizations (DRO), Na Homolka Hospital (NHH) (0023884). Dr Schmidt has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin has received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund; speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS; and support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Journal Pre-proof 21 Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Neven has received speaker fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Metzner has received a research grant and fees from Farapulse. Dr Hansen has received speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw has received research grants from Medtronic and Atricure and consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer has served as a member of the Advisory Board for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. He has received modest honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Anic has received consultant fees from Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster and has performed contracted research for Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke has received speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik, has been a consultant to Farapulse, and has served on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Tilz has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster and speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster. Dr Scherr has received an educational grant from Farapulse Inc and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili has received investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific and speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Steven has received speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; grants from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Kautzner has received personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in Scientific Advisory Boards and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. Dr Jais has received partial funding from L'institut Des Maladies Du Rythme Cardiaque, LIRYC ANR-10-IAHU-04, equity from Farapulse, and consulting fees and a grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Chun has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Roten has received research grants from Medtronic, the Swiss National Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Immanuel and Ilse Straub Foundation, and the Sitem Insel Support Fund and speaker fees/honoraria from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Medtronic. Dr Lemoine has received a research grant from Farapulse. Dr Rollin has received a research grant from Farapulse. Dr Gunawardene has received grants from Farapulse Inc and Abbott. Dr Heeger has received travel grants and research grants from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus and speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech. Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus and he has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Journal Pre-proof 22 Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Manninger has received speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and BMS/Pfizer and research grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. Dr Sultan has received lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Derval has received receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy has received consulting fees (and equity—now divested) from Farapulse Inc; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc; unrelated to this manuscript, has also served 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, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, Laminar Medical, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera–Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, and Valcare; unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adagio Medical, Append Medical, AtriAN, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Pulse Biosciences; and unrelated to this work, has equity in Atraverse, DRS Vascular, Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Soundcath, Surecor, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF)., Objective: To assess the outcomes of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) in HF., Methods: MANIFEST-PF is a multicenter patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal (PAF) or persistent AF (PerAF). In this sub-study, patients were stratified as: no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HF P EF; LVEF≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly-reduced EF (HF MR/R EF; LVEF<50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30s and major adverse events (MAEs), respectively., Results: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n=1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n=87) were HF P EF, and 8.6% (n=120) were HF MR/R EF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (p<0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (p=1.00). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF than with HF P EF or HF MR/R EF (79.9%, 71.3%, 67.5%, p<0.001), but similar between HF MR/R EF and HF P EF (p=0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HF P EF vs HF MR/R EF for those with PAF (82.8%/82.4%/71.7%, p=0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, p=0.14.MAE rates were similar between the no-HF, HF P EF and HF MR/R EF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively)., Conclusion: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is insufficient to treat many patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). Adjunctive left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) ablation with thermal technologies has revealed lack of efficacy, perhaps limited by the difficulty in achieving lesion durability amid concerns of esophageal injury., Objectives: This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI + LAPW ablation vs PVI in patients with PersAF using pulsed-field ablation (PFA)., Methods: In a retrospective analysis of the MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) registry, we studied consecutive PersAF patients undergoing post-approval treatment with a pentaspline PFA catheter. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from any atrial arrhythmia of ≥30 seconds. Safety outcomes included the composite of acute and chronic major adverse events., Results: Of the 547 patients with PersAF who underwent PFA, 131 (24%) received adjunctive LAPW ablation. Compared to PVI-alone, patients receiving adjunctive LAPW ablation were younger (65 vs 67 years of age, P = 0.08), had a lower CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (2.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.6 ± 1.6, P = 0.08), and were more likely to receive electroanatomical mapping (48.1% vs 39.0%, P = 0.07) and intracardiac echocardiography imaging (46.1% vs 17.1%, P < 0.001). The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmias was not statistically different between groups in the full (PVI + LAPW: 66.4%; 95% CI: 57.6%-74.4% vs PVI: 73.1%; 95% CI: 68.5%-77.2%; P = 0.68) and propensity-matched cohorts (PVI + LAPW: 71.7% vs PVI: 68.5%; P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in major adverse events between the groups (2.2% vs 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.51)., Conclusions: In patients with PersAF undergoing PFA, as compared to PVI-alone, adjunctive LAPW ablation did not improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Boston Scientific provided a grant to help fund data collection but was not otherwise involved with study design or analysis nor did they have access to this manuscript before submission. Dr Turagam has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster; and has received speaker honorarium from Sanofi and Medtronic. Dr Neuzil has received grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, DRO (NHH, 00023884). Dr Schmidt has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin has received grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the sitem insel support fund; has received speaker/consulting honoraria or travel support from Abbott/SJM, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer-BMS; and has received support for his institution’s fellowship program from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Metzner has received grants and fees from Farapulse. Dr Hansen has received speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw has received grants from Medtronic and Atricure; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer has been a member of the advisory boards for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Anic has received consultant fees from Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, Biosense Webster; and has performed contracted research for Farapulse Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Galaxy Medical Inc, and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke has received speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik; has received consulting fees from Farapulse; and has served on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Tilz reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster and speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster. Dr Scherr has received an educational grant from Farapulse Inc; and is a consultant For Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili has received consulting fees and travel expenses from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; has received investigator-initiated funding for research projects (initiated by him) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific; and has received speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Scherr has received speaking fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; has received grants from Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Kautzner has received personal fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Abbott for participation in scientific advisory boards; and has received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CathVision, Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, ProMed, and Abbott. Dr Jais has received partial funding from IHU LIRYC ANR-10-IAHU-04; has received equity from Farapulse; and has received consulting fees and grants from Boston Scientific. Dr Chun has received speaker fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Roten has received speaker honoraria from Abbott/SJM; has received consulting honoraria from Medtronic; and has received research funding to the institution from Medtronic. Dr Lemoine has received grants from Farapulse. Dr Rollin has received grants from Farapulse. Dr Nentwich has received speaker fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Gunawardine has received grants from Farapulse Inc and Abbott. Dr Heeger has received travel grants and research grants from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus; has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Manninger has received speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and BMS/Pfizer; and has received grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. Dr Sultan has received lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Derval has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy has received consulting fees (and equity – now divested) from Farapulse Inc; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific Inc; and, unrelated to this manuscript, has served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, Anumana, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics-Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, Laminar, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, Valcare; also unrelated to this work, he has received consulting fees from AtriAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips, and Pulse Biosciences; and he has equity in 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., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Strokes after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) prophylaxis are generally less severe than those after warfarin prophylaxis-thought to be secondary to more hemorrhagic strokes with warfarin. Hemorrhagic strokes are similarly infrequent with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis, so the primary subtype after either LAAC or DOAC prophylaxis is ischemic stroke (IS)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the severity of IS using the modified Rankin Scale in atrial fibrillation patients receiving prophylaxis with DOACs vs LAAC., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients undergoing LAAC at 8 centers who developed an IS (IS LAAC ) compared with contemporaneous consecutive patients who developed IS during treatment with DOACs (IS DOAC ). The primary outcome was disabling/fatal stroke (modified Rankin Scale 3-5) at discharge and 3 months later., Results: Compared with IS DOAC patients (n = 322), IS LAAC patients (n = 125) were older (age 77.2 ± 13.4 years vs 73.1 ± 11.9 years; P = 0.002), with higher HAS-BLED scores (3.0 vs 2.0; P = 0.004) and more frequent prior bleeding events (54.4% vs 23.6%; P < 0.001), but similar CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores (5.0 vs 5.0; P = 0.28). Strokes were less frequently disabling/fatal with IS LAAC than IS DOAC at both hospital discharge (38.3% vs 70.3%; P < 0.001) and 3 months later (33.3% vs 56.2%; P < 0.001). Differences in stroke severity persisted after propensity score matching. By multivariate regression analysis, IS LAAC was independently associated with fewer disabling/fatal strokes at discharge (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13-0.39; P < 0.001) and 3 months (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12-0.50; P < 0.001), and fewer deaths at 3 months (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.64; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Ischemic strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation are less often disabling or fatal with LAAC than DOAC prophylaxis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Turagam has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Sanofi. Dr Nair has served as a consultant for and receives honoraria for speaking engagements from Boston Scientific, Johnson and Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr Doshi has served as a consultant to Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Valderrabano has received scientific research support from and served as a consultant to Circa; has received research support from and served as a consultant to Biosense Webster; and has served as a consultant to Abbott. Dr Dukkipati has received payment for Farapulse acquisition from Boston Scientific; and has equity in Manual Surgical Sciences. Dr Natale has served as a consultant for Abbott, Baylis, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Reddy has served as an unpaid consultant to Boston Scientific; unrelated to this paper, he has served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, Anumana, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, CardiaCare, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics-Medtronic, EpiEP, Eximo, Field Medical, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, and Valcare; unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for Abbott, AtriAN, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore and Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips, and Pulse Biosciences; and has equity in 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., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)