Search

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.)

Background: Preclinical studies have revealed that pulsed field ablation (PFA) lesion dimensions increase with repetitive applications at a similar electric field., Objectives: This study investigated whether pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) durability varies with single vs repetitive pulsed field (PF) applications., Methods: Atrial fibrillation patients underwent PVI using a spherical multielectrode array PFA catheter delivered with a 19-F deflectable sheath under intracardiac echocardiographic guidance. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and brain magnetic resonance imaging were performed within 1 to 3 days, and invasive remapping at ∼2 to 3 months., Results: The patient cohort (n = 21; age 63 ± 11 years; 67% women) underwent PVI in either of 2 groups: group 1 (n = 11)-single PF application/PV; and group 2 (n = 10)-3 PF applications/PV. In both groups, PVI was acutely successful in all (100%) patients. Despite significantly longer pulse delivery times (75.2 ± 7.4 s/patient vs 24.5 ± 5.5 s/patient) the procedure times (73.2 ± 13.7 minutes vs 93.7 ± 18.5 minutes) were shorter with group 2 vs group 1. There was no stroke/transient ischemic attack, pericardial effusion, phrenic nerve injury, or esophageal complications. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was normal in both groups of patients (n = 9). Screening brain magnetic resonance imaging revealed asymptomatic cerebral lesions (diffusion weighted imaging+/fluid attenuated inversion recovery-) in 3 of 16 (18.7%) patients. PV remapping revealed durable PVI in 62.5% PVs in group 1 (n = 10), compared with all 100% PVs in group 2 (n = 9); this translates to all PVs being durably isolated in 30% vs 100% (P < 0.05) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively., Conclusions: In his first-in-human trial, the "single-shot" spherical array PFA catheter was shown to safely isolate PVs. Repetitive PF application is key for lesion consolidation to maximize PVI durability., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Neuzil and Koruth have received grant support from Kardium Inc. Dr Reinders is an employee of and holds stock in Kardium Inc. Dr Reddy has served as a consultant to Kardium Inc (including Equity); is a consultant to Abbott, Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, AtiAN, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cairdac, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CardioNXT / AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoreMap, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EBR, EPD-Philips, EP Frontiers, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse-Boston Scientific, Fire1, Focused Therapeutics, Gore & Associates, HRT, Impulse Dynamics, Intershunt, Javelin, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Medlumics, Medtronic, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Oracle Health, Philips, Pulse Biosciences, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, and Valcare; and has equity from Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera-Medtronic, Apama Medical-Boston Scientific, 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, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse-Boston Scientific, Focused Therapeutics, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Manual Surgical Sciences, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Newpace, Nuvera-Biosense Webster, Nyra Medical, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, SoundCath, Surecor, Valcare, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: During atrial fibrillation ablations using thermal energy, the treatment effect is attributed to not just pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), but also to modulation of the autonomic nervous system by ablation of cardiac ganglionated plexi (GP)., Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of pulsed field ablation (PFA) on the GP in patients undergoing PVI., Methods: In the retrospective phase, heart rate was assessed pre- versus post-PVI using PFA, cryoballoon ablation, or radiofrequency ablation. In the prospective phase, a pentaspline PFA catheter was used in a protocol: 1) pre-PFA, high-frequency stimulation (HFS) identified GP sites by vagal effects; 2) PVI was performed assessing for repetitive vagal effects over each set of PF applications; 3) mapping defined PVI extent to identify those GP in the ablation zone; and 4) repeat HFS at GP sites to assess for persistence of vagal effects., Results: Between baseline and 3 months, heart rates in the retrospective radiofrequency ablation (n = 40), cryoballoon (n = 40), and PFA (n = 40) cohorts increased by 8.9 ± 11.4, 11.1 ± 9.4, and -0.1 ± 9.2 beats/min, respectively (P= 0.01 PFA vs radiofrequency ablation; P= 0.01 PFA vs cryoballoon ablation). In the prospective phase, pre-PFA HFS in 20 additional patients identified 65 GP sites. During PFA, vagal effects were noted in 45% of first PF applications, persisting through all applications in 83%. HFS post-PFA reproduced vagal effects in 29 of 38 sites (76%) in low-voltage tissue., Conclusions: PFA has minimal effect on GP. Unlike with thermal ablation, the mechanism by which PFA treats atrial fibrillation is mediated solely by durable PVI., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Neuzil has received grant support from, and has served as a consultant to Farapulse Inc. Dr Dukkipati has equity in Farapulse Inc. Dr Reddy has served as a consultant to and owns equity in Farapulse Inc, Ableton, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical–Boston Scientific, 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, EpiEP, Eximo, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone heart, LuxMed, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera-Biosense Weber, Oracle Health, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, and Valcare, is a consultant to Abbott, AtiAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, EBR, Fire1, W. L. Gore and Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Philips, and Pulse Biosciences, and holds equity in Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Surecor, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Doshi has received a grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Dukkipati has received a grant from Biosense Webster; and holds equity in Farapulse and Manual Surgical Sciences. Dr Neuzil has received grants from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific. Dr Reddy is a consultant to Abbott, Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, AtiAN, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiac Implants, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoreMap, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, East End Medical, EBR, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse, Fire1, Gore & Associates, HRT, Impulse Dynamics, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxCath, Medlumics, Medtronic, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Nuvera, Philips, Pulse Biosciences, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, and Valcare; and holds equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Backbeat, BioSig, Cardiac Implants, CardiaCare, Circa Scientific, CoRISMA, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, East End Medical), EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse, Fire1, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxCath, Manual Surgical Sciences, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Neutrace, Newpace, Nuvera, Restore Medical, Sirona Medical, Surecor, Valcare, and Vizaramed (Equity). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objectives: This is a first report of the safety and 1-year outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using a novel foam-based conformable device, guided by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)., Background: Limitations of current transcatheter LAAC devices include the need for precise coaxial delivery into the left atrial appendage (LAA), potential for traumatic implantation, incomplete LAA seal, and device-related thrombus., Methods: The device (Conformal Left Atrial Appendage Seal, Conformal Medical Inc) is a self-expanding occluder consisting of a cylindrical nitinol endoskeleton with low-profile anchor barbs around the midpoint, covered with a porous foam cup. In a prospective single-center series, under conscious sedation, the device was delivered under fluoroscopic and ICE guidance. After positioning, a transesophageal echocardiography probe was placed to confirm ICE findings before device release. After closure, dual antiplatelet therapy was administered for 6 months. Follow-up imaging was planned for 45 days and 6 and 12 months., Results: A total of 15 patients (age 71.3 ± 10.8 years, 33% men, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 4.1 ± 1.7, HAS-BLED 3.4 ± 1.4) underwent LAAC, 100% successfully. There were no procedure/device-related complications requiring intervention. Asymptomatic pericardial effusion occurred in 2 patients. The 45-day, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up imaging in 11, 9, and 13 patients, respectively, revealed adequate LAA seal (leak ≤5 mm) in all patients; device-related thrombus was detected in 1 patient at 6 months. Over 1-year follow-up, there were no ischemic strokes and 1 minor bleed. Nonprocedure-/device-related death occurred in 2 patients., Conclusions: This first report indicates that LAAC with the conformable implant guided by ICE imaging is feasible with encouraging 1-year clinical outcomes. (The Conformal Prague Study; NCT04193826)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Conformal Medical, Inc, provided funding for this study. Dr Neuzil has received grants from Conformal Medical Inc and Biosense Webster Inc. Dr Dukkipati has received a grant from Biosense Webster. Dr Reddy has served as an unpaid consultant to Conformal Medical Inc and Biosense Webster Inc; has served as a consultant for and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Backbeat, BioSig, Circa Scientific, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech Co, Ltd, East End Medical, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Fire1, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxCath, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Nuvera, Sirona Medical, and Valcare unrelated to this work; has served as a consultant for Abbott, Axon, Biotronik, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CardioNXT/AFTx, EBR, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Philips, Pulse Biosciences, Stimda, and Thermedical unrelated to this work; and has equity in Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Surecor, and Vizaramed unrelated to this work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The goal of this study is to determine the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)., Background: COVID-19 results in increased inflammatory markers previously associated with atrial arrhythmias. However, little is known about their incidence or specificity in COVID-19 or their association with outcomes., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 3,970 patients admitted with polymerase chain reaction-positive COVID-19 between February 4 and April 22, 2020, with manual review performed of 1,110. The comparator arm included 1,420 patients with influenza hospitalized between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020., Results: Among 3,970 inpatients with COVID-19, the incidence of AF/AFL was 10% (n = 375) and in patients without a history of atrial arrhythmias it was 4% (n = 146). Patients with new-onset AF/AFL were older with increased inflammatory markers including interleukin 6 (93 vs. 68 pg/ml; p < 0.01), and more myocardial injury (troponin-I: 0.2 vs. 0.06 ng/ml; p < 0.01). AF and AFL were associated with increased mortality (46% vs. 26%; p < 0.01). Manual review captured a somewhat higher incidence of AF/AFL (13%, n = 140). Compared to inpatients with COVID-19, patients with influenza (n = 1,420) had similar rates of AF/AFL (12%, n = 163) but lower mortality. The presence of AF/AFL correlated with similarly increased mortality in both COVID-19 (relative risk: 1.77) and influenza (relative risk: 1.78)., Conclusions: AF/AFL occurs in a subset of patients hospitalized with either COVID-19 or influenza and is associated with inflammation and disease severity in both infections. The incidence and associated increase in mortality in both cohorts suggests that AF/AFL is not specific to COVID-19, but is rather a generalized response to the systemic inflammation of severe viral illnesses., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Koruth has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, CardioFocus, Farapulse, and Vytron US, Inc. Dr Dukkipati has received grant support from Biosense Webster; and has equity with Farapulse and Manual Surgical Sciences, LLC. Dr Halperin has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic. Dr Reddy is a consultant with Abbott, Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon, Backbeat, BioSig, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech Co., Ltd., East End Medical, EBR, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Fire1, Impulse Dynamics, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxCath, Manual Surgical Sciences, Medlumics, Medtronic, Middlepeak, Newpace, Nuvera, Philips, Pulse Biosciences, Sirona Medical, Stimda, Surecor, Thermedical, and Valcare; and has equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Backbeat, BioSig, Circa Scientific, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech Co., Ltd., East End Medical, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Fire 1, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxCath, Manual Surgical Sciences, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Newpace, Nuvera, Sirona Medical, Surecor, Valcare, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine the impact of adjunctive renal sympathetic denervation to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and history of hypertension., Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of upstream adjunctive renal sympathetic denervation (RSDN) to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension., Methods: The data for this study were obtained from 2 prospective randomized pilot studies, the HFIB (Adjunctive Renal Denervation to Modify Hypertension and Sympathetic tone as Upstream Therapy in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation)-1 (n = 30) and HFIB (Adjunctive Renal Denervation to Modify Hypertension and Sympathetic tone as Upstream Therapy in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation)-2 (n = 50) studies, and we performed a meta-analysis including all published studies comparing RSDN+PVI versus PVI alone up to January 25, 2020, in patients with AF and hypertension., Results: At 24 months, AF recurrence occurred in 53% and 38% in the PVI and PVI+RSDN groups (p = 0.43) in the HFIB-1 study, respectively, and 27% and 25% in the PVI and PVI+RSDN groups (p = 0.80) in the HFIB-2 study, respectively. When combined in a meta-analysis including 6 studies (n = 725), adjunctive RSDN significantly decreased the risk of AF recurrence (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 0.83; p = 0.0002; I 2  = 0%) when compared with PVI. Six renal artery complications occurred in the HFIB-1 study and none occurred in the HFIB-2 study with RSDN. However, in the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in overall complications between both groups (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.63 to 3.22; p = 0.40; I 2  = 7%). When compared with baseline, RDSN significantly reduced the systolic blood pressure (-12.1 mm Hg; 95% CI: -20.9 to -3.3 mm Hg; p < 0.007; I 2  = 99%) and diastolic blood pressure (-5.60 mm Hg; 95% CI: -10.05 to -1.10 mm Hg; p = 0.01; I 2  = 98%) on follow-up., Conclusions: The pilot HFIB-1 and HFIB-2 studies did not demonstrate a benefit with RSDN as an adjunctive upstream therapy during PVI. However, in the meta-analysis, adjunctive RSDN to PVI appears to be safe, and improves clinical outcomes in AF patients with a history of hypertension., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures The HFIB-1 study was sponsored by Biosense Webster. The HFIB-2 study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Cuoco has served as a consultant for St. Jude Medical and Boston Scientific. Dr. Mansour has received research grant support from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Johnson and Johnson, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sentre Heart; has served as a consultant for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Jonhson and Johnson, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, Novartis, and Sentre Heart; and owns equity interest in Affera, EPS Solutions, and NewPace Ltd. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a steering committee member for the Amulet and Amaze IDE studies; and received consulting fees from Abbott. Dr. Michaud has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Dukkipati owns equity interest in Manual Surgical Sciences and Farapulse; and has received research grant support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Reddy has served as an unpaid consultant to and received grant support from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific. Additional disclosures unrelated to this manuscript are listed in the Supplemental Appendix. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation., Background: Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience., Methods: A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs)., Results: Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC., Conclusions: CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures in patients with persistent left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus., Background: The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the most common site of thrombus formation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is used to prevent and treat AF-related thrombus. However, a significant proportion of patients may not be eligible for long-term OAC therapy. In many cases, OAC may fail to resolve the thrombus. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) may be a potential option in such cases. Major LAAO studies have excluded patients with LAA thrombus, and it is not known whether LAAO procedures in the presence of LAA thrombus is feasible and safe., Methods: This was a systematic review of patient-level data of all published cases of LAAO in the presence of LAA thrombus., Results: There was a total of 58 patients included in the study. Most of the patients had a distally located thrombus in the LAA. All cases underwent successful implantation of LAAO devices with some procedural modifications. Amulet was the most commonly used device (50%). A cerebral protection device was used in 17 (29%) patients, and procedural transesophageal echocardiography was used in most of the cases. One stroke (1.7%) and 2 (3.4%) device-related thromboses were noted during the mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 7 months., Conclusions: Percutaneous LAAO procedures appear to be feasible in patients with a distally located persistent LAA thrombus when performed by experienced operators with some technical modifications. Further studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of this approach., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous retrieval of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices with an endoscopic grasping tool., Background: Transcatheter LAAC is a mechanical stroke prevention strategy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are poor candidates for long-term oral anticoagulation. However, these LAAC devices can be inadvertently released into an unfavorable location, the device might migrate to a different (unfavorable) position within the left atrial appendage (LAA) or may embolize from the heart into the aorta. In such instances, it can be challenging to remove the LAAC device without open cardiac or vascular surgery., Methods: This study reports on a series of 4 cases in which an endoscopic grasping tool (Raptor) designed for gastrointestinal applications was used to percutaneously (non-surgically) remove LAAC devices that were either malpositioned or embolized., Results: LAAC devices were safely and non-surgically removed using the grasping device in all 4 cases (Amulet: 1, Watchman: 3). Devices were successfully retrieved from the left inferior pulmonary vein, descending aorta, aortic arch, and the edge of the LAA ostium. Time of device retrieval post-LAAC implantation ranged from 24 h to 1 year. Special precautionary measures, such as preemptive pericardial access, embolic protection devices, and intraprocedural imaging, were used in 2 cases., Conclusions: This case series demonstrated that the endoscopic grasping tool appeared to be safe and useful to percutaneously retrieve LAAC devices., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in transient thermal response (TTR) among various types of commercial esophageal temperature probes (ETPs) in the United States in an experimental model., Background: There is little information regarding the variation in TTR among various commercial ETPs that are approved for atrial fibrillation ablation., Methods: We compared various thermodynamic characteristics including, mean thermal time constant (τ), time to rise 1°C (T 1°C ), time to peak temperature (T peak ), and decay time among 22 different ETPs. Each probe was submerged in a constant-temperature water bath maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C and then quickly (<0.5 s) submerged into another water bath at 45 ± 0.5°C. The experiments were repeated 3 times with each probe. TTR properties were compared on the basis of probe size, design, and number of sensors., Results: The τ was significantly higher with the larger 24- and 18-F ETPs compared with the smaller 9-F ETPs. Compared with the 18-F probe, T 1°C (11.9 s vs. 5 s), T peak (40.3 s vs. 14.4 s), and T decay (92.4 s vs. 32.4 s) was shorter with the 9-F ETPs. Solid-shaft ETPs had shorter τ (8.6 s vs. 20.5 s), T 1°C (4.4 s vs. 10.1 s) and T peak (13.5 s vs. 32.5 s) compared with acoustascopes. Multisensor ETPs had shorter τs (3.9 s vs. 9.1 s), T 1°C (2.3 s vs. 5 s), and T peak (6.2 s vs. 14.4 s) compared with single-sensor ETPs., Conclusions: There is a significant variation in TTR among the various commercially available ETPs. The use of certain ETPs might result in underestimation of luminal esophageal temperature, which can potentially lead to adverse events., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients receiving hemodynamic support (HS) during ventricular tacchycardia (VT) ablation., Background: There are limited real-world data evaluating its effect of HS in ablation outcomes., Methods: An analysis of 1,655 patients from the International VT Ablation Center Collaborative group was performed. A total of 105 patients received HS with percutaneous ventricular assist device., Results: Patients in the HS group had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and more implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, VT storm, and antiarrhythmic drug use (all p < 0.05). The HS group also required significantly longer fluoroscopy, procedure, and total lesion time. Acute procedural success (71.8% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.04) was significantly lower and complications (12.5% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.03) and 1-year mortality (34.7% vs. 9.3%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the HS group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated HS as an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 5.01; 95% confidence interval: 3.44 to 7.20; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VT recurrence between groups. In a subgroup analysis including LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV patients, acute procedural success (74.0% vs. 70.5%; p = 0.8), complications (15.6% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.2), VT recurrence (30.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.44), and 1-year mortality (40.0% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.2) were no different between the HS and no-HS groups., Conclusions: Patients requiring HS were sicker with multiple comorbidities and, as expected, had a significantly higher 1-year mortality than did those patients in the no-HS group. In patients with LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV, there was also no significant difference in clinical outcomes when compared with no HS. Further studies are needed to systematically evaluate patients undergoing VT ablation receiving HS., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The present study describes the use of octreotide (OCT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) who have gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding related to arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), as well as its effect on OAC tolerance and subsequent rebleeding., Background: AVMs cause significant GI bleeding, especially in patients with AF who are receiving OAC for stroke prevention. OCT has been shown to minimize recurrent GI bleeds related to AVMs., Methods: In a multicenter, observational study, 38 AF patients with contraindications to OAC because of AVM-related GI bleeding were started on 100 μg of subcutaneous OCT twice daily. OAC was resumed in all patients within 48 h. Incidence of recurrent GI bleeds was calculated, and hemoglobin levels were recorded at enrollment and at 3 and 6 months' follow-up., Results: After a median follow-up of 8 months, 36 patients (mean age 69 ± 8.0 years; mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 3 ± 1 and mean HAS-BLED score 3 ± 1) were available for analysis. All were able to successfully resume OAC, and 28 of 36 (78%) remained on OAC at the conclusion of the study, whereas 8 underwent left atrial appendage closure with subsequent OAC discontinuation. No systemic thromboembolic events occurred in follow-up. Of the 28 patients who continued receiving OAC, 19 (68%) were free of recurrent GI bleed, 4 had minor GI bleeds, 4 required transfusion, and 1 required colectomy for GI bleeding. Mean hemoglobin levels in all patients receiving OAC were significantly higher at 3- and 6-month follow-up than at baseline (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Subcutaneous OCT therapy is an attractive option in AF patients receiving OAC who have AVM-related GI bleeds. It allows successful reinitiation of OAC as a bridge to left atrial appendage exclusion or short-term relief from bleeding., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)