Search

Background: Pulsed field ablation is a novel nonthermal cardiac ablation modality using ultra-rapid electrical pulses to cause cell death by a mechanism of irreversible electroporation. Unlike the traditional ablation energy sources, pulsed field ablation has demonstrated significant preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation, and thus avoids certain thermally mediated complications. However, its safety and effectiveness remain unknown in usual clinical care., Methods: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a retrospective, multinational, patient-level registry wherein patients at each center were prospectively included in their respective center registries. The registry included all patients undergoing postapproval treatment with a multielectrode 5-spline pulsed field ablation catheter to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) between March 1, 2021, and May 30, 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from clinical documented atrial arrhythmia (AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia) of ≥30 seconds on the basis of electrocardiographic data after a 3-month blanking period (on or off antiarrhythmic drugs). Safety outcomes included the composite of acute (<7 days postprocedure) and latent (>7 days) major adverse events., Results: At 24 European centers (77 operators) pulsed field ablation was performed in 1568 patients with AF: age 64.5±11.5 years, female 35%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 65%/32%, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 2.2±1.6, median left ventricular ejection fraction 60%, and left atrial diameter 42 mm. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 99.2% of patients. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 367 (289-421) days, the 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.0%-80.0%); clinical effectiveness was more common in patients with paroxysmal AF versus persistent AF (81.6% versus 71.5%; P =0.001). Acute major adverse events occurred in 1.9% of patients., Conclusions: In this large observational registry of the postapproval clinical use of pulsed field technology to treat AF, catheter ablation using pulsed field energy was clinically effective in 78% of patients with AF., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Reddy reports receiving consulting fees (and equity—now divested) from Farapulse Inc. and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc; unrelated to this manuscript, Dr Reddy also serves 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, Valcare; unrelated to this work, has served as a consultant for AtriAN, Biosense-Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cairdac, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CoreMap, Fire1, Gore & Associates, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips, Pulse Biosciences; and has equity in Manual Surgical Sciences, Newpace, Nyra Medical, Surecor, and Vizaramed. Dr Schmidt reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Reichlin reports 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. Support for his institution’s fellowship programme from Abbott/SJM, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Roten reports receiving speaker honoraria from Abbott/SJM, consulting honoraria from Medtronic, and research funding to the institution from Medtronic. Dr Neven reports speaker’s fees from Farapulse, Inc. Dr Metzner reports research grant and fees from Farapulse. Dr Rollin reports receiving research grant from Farapulse. Dr Lemoine reports receiving research grant from Farapulse. Dr Hansen reports receiving speaker fees and grant support from Biosense Webster, and Medtronic. Dr Blaauw reports receiving research grants from Medtronic and Atricure and consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific. Dr Sommer reports member of the advisory board for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Anic reports receiving consultant fees from Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., Biosense Webster, and performs contracted research for Farapulse Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Galaxy Medical Inc., and Biosense Webster. Dr Anselme reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport CRM. Dr Boveda reports receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, Zoll, and BMS. Dr Deneke reports receiving speaker honoraria from Galaxy Medical, Abbott, and Biotronik, being a consultant to Farapulse, and serving on a Clinical Events Committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Willems reports receiving grants and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers Squibb, Bayer Vital, Accutus, Daiichi, and Farapulse Inc. Dr Gunawardene reports grants from Farapulse Inc. and Abbott. Dr Tilz reports receiving consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Biosense Webster and speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Biotronik, and Biosense Webster. Dr Heeger received travel grants and research grants by Boston Scientific, Lifetech, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus and Speaker´s Honoraria from Boston Scientific, Lifetech. Biosense Webster, Bayer, and Cardiofocus. He is a consultant of Medtronic, Lifetech, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Cardiofocus. Dr Scheer reports receiving an educational grant from Farapulse Inc. and is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc. Dr Wakili reports receiving consultant fees and travel expenses from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; 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 reports receiving speaking 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 Sultan reports receiving lecture and consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Bayer. Dr Kautzner reports 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 reports receiving equity from Farapulse and consulting fees and grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Derval reports receiving consulting fees from Boston scientific. Dr Chun reports receiving speaker’s fees and research grants from Boston Scientific/Farapulse, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Abbott. Dr Neuzil reports receiving grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, DRO (NHH, 00023884). Dr Manninger reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Amomed, AOP Orphan, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, BMS/Pfizer and research grants from Biosense Webster and Abbott. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest.

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

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

Orthotropic heart transplantation remains the most effective therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure, with a median survival of ≈13 years. Yet, a number of complications are observed after orthotropic heart transplantation, including atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Several factors contribute to arrhythmias, such as autonomic denervation, effect of the surgical technique, acute and chronic rejection, and transplant vasculopathy among others. To minimize risk of future arrhythmias, the bicaval technique and minimizing ischemic time are current surgical standards. Sinus node dysfunction is the most common indication for early (within 30 days) pacemaker implantation, whereas atrioventricular block incidence increases as time from transplant increases. Atrial fibrillation can occur in the first few weeks following transplantation but is uncommon in the long term unless secondary to a precipitant such as acute rejection. The most common atrial arrhythmias are atrial flutters, which are mainly typical, but atypical circuits can be observed such as those that involve the remnant donor atrium in regions immediately adjacent to the atrioatrial anastomosis suture line. Choosing the appropriate pharmacological therapy requires careful consideration due to the potential interaction with immunosuppressive agents. Despite historical concerns, adenosine is effective and safe at reduced doses if administered under cardiac monitoring. Catheter ablation has emerged as an effective treatment strategy for symptomatic supraventricular tachycardias, including ablation of atypical flutter circuits. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy is an important risk factor for sudden cardiac death, yet the role of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant for sudden death prevention is unclear. Current indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation are as in the nontransplant population. A number of questions for future research are posed.

Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop cardiac injury are reported to experience higher rates of malignant cardiac arrhythmias. However, little is known about these arrhythmias-their frequency, the underlying mechanisms, and their impact on mortality., Methods: We extracted data from a registry (NCT04358029) regarding consecutive inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 who were receiving continuous telemetric ECG monitoring and had a definitive disposition of hospital discharge or death. Between patients who died versus discharged, we compared a primary composite end point of cardiac arrest from ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or bradyarrhythmias such as atrioventricular block., Results: Among 800 patients with COVID-19 at Mount Sinai Hospital with definitive dispositions, 140 patients had telemetric monitoring, and either died (52) or were discharged (88). The median (interquartile range) age was 61 years (48-74); 73% men; and ethnicity was White in 34%. Comorbidities included hypertension in 61%, coronary artery disease in 25%, ventricular arrhythmia history in 1.4%, and no significant comorbidities in 16%. Compared with discharged patients, those who died had elevated peak troponin I levels (0.27 versus 0.02 ng/mL) and more primary end point events (17% versus 4%, P =0.01)-a difference driven by tachyarrhythmias. Fatal tachyarrhythmias invariably occurred in the presence of severe metabolic imbalance, while atrioventricular block was largely an independent primary event., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who die experience malignant cardiac arrhythmias more often than those surviving to discharge. However, these events represent a minority of cardiovascular deaths, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias are mainly associated with severe metabolic derangement. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04358029.

The 2019 novel coronavirus, declared a pandemic, has infected 2.6 million people as of April 27, 2020, and has resulted in the death of 181,938 people. D-dimer is an important prognostic tool, is often elevated in patients with severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection and in those who suffered death. In this systematic review, we aimed to investigate the prognostic role of D-dimer in COVID-19-infected patients. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane for studies reporting admission D-dimer levels in COVID-19 patients and its effect on mortality. Eighteen studies (16 retrospective and 2 prospective) with a total of 3682 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) demonstrated significantly elevated D-dimer levels in patients who died versus those who survived (WMD, 6.13 mg/L; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.16-8.11; P < 0.001). Similarly, the pooled mean D-dimer levels were significantly elevated in patients with severe COVID-19 infection (WMD, 0.54 mg/L; 95% CI 0.28-0.80; P < 0.001). The risk of mortality was fourfold higher in patients with positive D-dimer versus negative D-dimer (risk ratio, 4.11; 95% CI, 2.48-6.84; P < 0.001) and the risk of developing severe disease was twofold higher in patients with positive D-dimer levels versus negative D-dimer (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.34-3.11; P < 0.001). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with COVID-19 infection presenting with elevated D-dimer levels have an increased risk of severe disease and mortality.

Background: Electrophysiological procedures such as epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage ligation that involve the epicardial space are typically associated with significant postoperative pain due to mechanical irritation and associated inflammation. There is an unmet need for an effective pain management strategy in this group of patients. We studied how this impacts patient comfort and duration of hospitalization and other associated comorbidities related to pericardial access., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study including 104 patients who underwent epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage exclusion. We compared 53 patients who received postprocedural intrapericardial liposomal bupivacaine (LB)+oral colchicine (LB group) and 51 patients who received colchicine alone (non-LB group) between January 2015 and March 2018., Results: LB was associated with significant lowering of median pain scale at 6 hours (1.0 [0-2.0] versus 8.0 [6.0-8.0], P <0.001), 12 hours (1.0 [1.0-2.0] versus 6.0 [5.0-6.0], P <0.001), and up to 48 hours postprocedure. Incidence of acute severe pericarditis delayed pericardial effusion and gastrointestinal adverse effects were similar in both groups. Median length of stay was significantly lower in LB group (2.0 versus 3.0; adjusted linear coefficient -1 [CI -1.3 to -0.6], P <0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar favorable outcomes in both Lariat and epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation groups., Conclusions: Addition of intrapericardial postprocedural LB to oral colchicine in patients undergoing epicardial access during ventricular tachycardia ablation or Lariat procedure is associated with significantly decreased numeric pain score up to 48 hours compared with colchicine alone. It is also associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay without an increase in the risk of adverse events.

Background: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) using point-by-point radiofrequency energy or single-application one-shot balloons is either technically challenging or have limited ability to accommodate variable patient anatomy to achieve acute and durable pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. A novel ablation system employs low intensity collimated ultrasound (LICU)-guided anatomic mapping and robotic ablation to isolate PVs. In this first-in-human, single-center, multioperator trial, VALUE trial (VytronUS Ablation System for Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation; NCT03639597) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, this LICU system was evaluated to determine its safety, effectiveness in PV isolation, and freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmias., Methods: In the enrolled 52 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, ultrasound M-mode-based left atrial anatomies were successfully created, and ablation was performed under robotic control along an operator-defined lesion path. The LICU system software advanced over the course of the study: the last 13 patients were ablated with enhanced software., Results: Acute PV isolation was achieved in 98% of PVs-using LICU-only in 77.3% (153/198) of PVs and requiring touch-up with a standard radiofrequency ablation catheter in 22.7% (45/198) PVs. The touch-up rate decreased to 5.8% (3/52) in patients undergoing LICU-ablation with enhanced software. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 79.6% (39/49 patients) at 12 months or 92.3% (12/13 patients) with the enhanced software. Major adverse events occurred in 3 patients (5.8%): one had transient diaphragmatic paralysis, one vascular access complication, and one had transient ST-segment elevation from air-embolism, without sequelae., Conclusions: In this first-in-human study, low- intensity collimated ultrasound-guided anatomic mapping and robotic ablation allows PV isolation with good chronic safety; PV isolation success is improving with device enhancements. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03639597.

Background: Premature ventricular contractions are a common clinical presentation that drives further diagnostic workup. We hypothesize the presence of underlying inflammation is often unrecognized in these patients with a potential for continued disease progression if not diagnosed and treated early in the disease course., Methods: This is a single-center, prospective study including 107 patients with frequent symptomatic premature ventricular contractions (>5000/24 h) and no known ischemic heart disease. Patients underwent a combination of laboratory testing, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and biopsy. Patients were diagnosed with myocarditis based on a multidisciplinary approach and treated with immunosuppressive therapy., Results: The mean age of the cohort was 57±15 years, 41% were males, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 47±11.8%. Positive positron emission tomography scan was seen in 51% (55/107), of which 51% (28/55) had preserved left ventricle function. Based on clinical profile, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging, cardiac magnetic resonance, and histological data 58% patients (32/55) received immunosuppressive therapy alone and 25.4% (14/55) received immunosuppressive therapy and catheter ablation. Optimal response was seen in 67% (31/46) over a mean follow-up of 6±3 months. In patients with left ventricle systolic dysfunction, 37% (10/27) showed an improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 13±6%., Conclusions: Approximately 51% of patients presenting with frequent premature ventricular contractions have underlying myocardial inflammation in this cohort. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan can be a useful modality for early diagnosis and treatment with immunosuppressive therapy in selected patients can improve clinical outcomes.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (PoAF), a common complication of cardiac surgery, contributes significantly to morbidity, mortality, and increasing healthcare costs. Despite advances in surgical and medical management, the overall incidence of PoAF has not changed significantly, partly because of the limited understanding of mechanisms underlying acute surgery-related factors, such as myocardial injury, inflammation, sympathetic activation, and oxidative stress, which play an important role in the initiation of PoAF, whereas a preexisting atrial substrate appears to be more important in the maintenance of this dysrhythmia. Thus, in a majority of patients, PoAF becomes a manifestation of an underlying arrhythmogenic substrate that is unmasked after acute surgical stress. As such, the ability to identify which patients have this proarrhythmic substrate and are, therefore, at high risk for developing AF postoperatively, is important for the improved selection for prophylactic interventions, closer monitoring for complications, and establishing the probability of AF in the long term. This review highlights the role of the underlying substrate in promoting PoAF, proposed mechanisms, and the potential role of serum biomarkers to identify patients at risk for PoAF.