Aims
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation modality that has demonstrated preferential tissue ablation, including no oesophageal damage, in first-in-human clinical trials. In the MANIFEST-PF survey, we investigated the ‘real world’ performance of the only approved PFA catheter, including acute effectiveness and safety—in particular, rare oesophageal effects and other unforeseen PFA-related complications.
Methods and results
This retrospective survey included all 24 clinical centres using the pentaspline PFA catheter after regulatory approval. Institution-level data were obtained on patient characteristics, procedure parameters, acute efficacy, and adverse events. With an average of 73 patients treated per centre (range 7–291), full cohort included 1758 patients: mean age 61.6 years (range 19–92), female 34%, first-time ablation 94%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 58/35%. Most procedures employed deep sedation without intubation (82.1%), and 15.1% were discharged same day. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was successful in 99.9% (range 98.9–100%). Procedure time was 65 min (38–215). There were no oesophageal complications or phrenic nerve injuries persisting past hospital discharge. Major complications (1.6%) were pericardial tamponade (0.97%) and stroke (0.4%); one stroke resulted in death (0.06%). Minor complications (3.9%) were primarily vascular (3.3%), but also included transient phrenic nerve paresis (0.46%), and TIA (0.11%). Rare complications included coronary artery spasm, haemoptysis, and dry cough persistent for 6 weeks (0.06% each).
Conclusion
In a large cohort of unselected patients, PFA was efficacious for PVI, and expressed a safety profile consistent with preferential tissue ablation. However, the frequency of ‘generic’ catheter complications (tamponade, stroke) underscores the need for improvement.
Introduction
Recently a novel cryoballoon system (POLARx, Boston Scientific) became available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. This cryoballoon is comparable with Arctic Front Advance Pro (AFA‐Pro, Medtronic), however, it maintains a constant balloon pressure. We compared the procedural efficacy and biophysical characteristics of both systems.
Methods
One hundred and ten consecutive patients who underwent first‐time cryoballoon ablation (POLARx: n = 57; AFA‐Pro: n = 53) were included in this prospective cohort study.
Results
Acute isolation was achieved in 99.8% of all pulmonary veins (POLARx: 99.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 100%, p = 1.00). Total procedure time (81 vs. 67 min, p < .001) and balloon in body time (51 vs. 35 min, p < .001) were longer with POLARx. After a learning curve, these times were similar. Cryoablation with POLARx was associated with shorter time to balloon temperature −30°C (27 vs. 31 s, p < .001) and −40°C (32 vs. 54 s, p < .001), lower balloon nadir temperature (−55°C vs. −47°C, p < .001), and longer thawing time till 0°C (16 vs. 9 s, p < .001). There were no differences in time‐to‐isolation (TTI; POLARx: 45 s vs. AFA‐Pro 43 s, p = .441), however, POLARx was associated with a lower balloon temperature at TTI (−46°C vs. −37°C, p < .001). Factors associated with acute isolation differed between groups. The incidence of phrenic nerve palsy was comparable (POLARx: 3.5% vs. AFA‐Pro: 3.7%).
Conclusion
The novel cryoballoon is comparable to AFA‐Pro and requires only a short learning curve to get used to the slightly different handling. It was associated with faster cooling rates and lower balloon temperatures but TTI was similar to AFA‐Pro.
The structure of the contribution disclosure form significantly influenced the number of contributions reported by authors of submitted manuscripts and their compliance with the ICMJE authorship criteria. Journal editors should be aware of the cognitive aspects of survey methodology when they construct for their authors self-reports about behaviour, such as contribution disclosure forms.
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.
Background
- The inspIRE study evaluated safety and effectiveness of a fully integrated biphasic pulsed field ablation (PFA) system with a variable loop circular catheter for the treatment of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods
- Subjects underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with the PFA system, using at least 12 applications per vein; adenosine/isoproterenol was administered to confirm entrance block. Wave I assessed initial safety, including for esophageal lesions, silent cerebral lesions (SCLs), and PV stenosis. Wave II (pivotal phase) tested i) primary safety - incidence of early onset primary adverse events (PAEs), and primary effectiveness - confirmed PVI with freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia at 12-months (12M). The study design specified an interim analysis to determine early success once 30 subjects reached 12M follow-up (FU) and all subjects reached 3M FU.
Results
- Across 13 centers in Europe/Canada, 226 subjects were enrolled, met criteria for safety and effectiveness evaluations and received PFA (Wave I: 40; Wave II: 186). Wave I demonstrated no esophageal thermal lesions or PV stenosis. Among 39 subjects with cerebral MRI, SCLs were detected in 4 of the first 6 subjects, after which workflow enhancements, including a 10s pause between PFA applications was implemented; subsequently, only 4 of 33 subjects had SCLs. In the Wave II phase, no PAE was reported. Upon declaring early success, 83 subjects reached 12M FU. With 100% entrance block, PVI without acute reconnection was achieved in 97.1% of targeted veins. For Wave II, the primary effectiveness endpoint per Kaplan Meier at the time of interim analysis was 70.9%; 12M freedom from symptomatic AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence and repeat ablation was 78.9% and 92.3%, respectively. Total procedure and transpired PFA times were 70.1 ± 27.7 min and 26.7 ± 14.0 min, respectively.
Conclusions
- The inspIRE trial confirmed the safety and effectiveness of the novel mapping-integrated PFA system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.