Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.

Turagam, Mohit K; Neuzil, Petr; Schmidt, Boris; Reichlin, Tobias; Neven, Kars; Metzner, Andreas; Hansen, Jim; Blaauw, Yuri; Maury, Philippe; Arentz, Thomas; Sommer, Philipp; Anic, Ante; Anselme, Frederic; Boveda, Serge; Deneke, Tom; Willems, Stephan; van der Voort, Pepijn; Tilz, Roland; Funasako, Moritoshi; Scherr, Daniel; ... (2024). Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure. (In Press). JACC Clinical electrophysiology Elsevier 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.002

Text 1-s2.0-S2405500X24003517-main.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (961kB) | Request a copy

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

0 since deposited on 17 Jun 2024
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item