In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation with respect to efficacy for the treatment of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to overall safety. (Funded by Medtronic; FIRE AND ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01490814.).

Terms of useThis work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark through the SDU Research Portal. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply:• You may download this work for personal use only.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org

Aims Inhibition of sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) reduces the risk of death and heart failure (HF) admissions in patients with chronic HF. However, safety and clinical efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute decompensated HF are unknown. Methods and results In this randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, parallel group, multicentre pilot study, we randomized 80 acute HF patients with and without diabetes to either empagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo for 30 days. The primary outcomes were change in visual analogue scale (VAS) dyspnoea score, diuretic response (weight change per 40 mg furosemide), change in N‐terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included safety and clinical endpoints. Mean age was 76 years, 33% were female, 47% had de novo HF and median NT‐proBNP was 5236 pg/mL. No difference was observed in VAS dyspnoea score, diuretic response, length of stay, or change in NT‐proBNP between empagliflozin and placebo. Empagliflozin reduced a combined endpoint of in‐hospital worsening HF, rehospitalization for HF or death at 60 days compared with placebo [4 (10%) vs. 13 (33%); P = 0.014]. Urinary output up until day 4 was significantly greater with empagliflozin vs. placebo [difference 3449 (95% confidence interval 578–6321) mL; P < 0.01]. Empagliflozin was safe, well tolerated, and had no adverse effects on blood pressure or renal function. Conclusions In patients with acute HF, treatment with empagliflozin had no effect on change in VAS dyspnoea, diuretic response, NT‐proBNP, and length of hospital stay, but was safe, increased urinary output and reduced a combined endpoint of worsening HF, rehospitalization for HF or death at 60 days.

Aims Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. Methods and results This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). Conclusions LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.