Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: A MANIFEST-PF Sub-analysis

Mohit K Turagam, Petr Neuzil, Boris Schmidt, Tobias Reichlin, Kars Neven, Andreas Metzner, Jim Hansen, Yuri Blaauw, Philippe Maury, Thomas Arentz, Philipp Sommer, Ante Anic, Frederic Anselme, Serge Boveda, Tom Deneke, Stephan Willems, Pepijn van der Voort, Roland Tilz, Moritoshi Funasako, Daniel ScherrReza Wakili, Daniel Steven, Josef Kautzner, Johan Vijgen, Pierre Jais, Jan Petru, Julian Chun, Laurent Roten, Anna Füting, Marc D Lemoine, Martin Ruwald, Bart A Mulder, Anne Rollin, Heiko Lehrmann, Thomas Fink, Zrinka Jurisic, Corentin Chaumont, Raquel Adelino, Karin Nentwich, Melanie Gunawardene, Alexandre Ouss, Christian-Hendrik Heeger, Martin Manninger, Jan-Eric Bohnen, Arian Sultan, Petr Peichl, Pieter Koopman, Nicolas Derval, Thomas Kueffer, Nico Reinsch, MANIFEST-PF Cooperative

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 (HFPEF; LVEF≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly-reduced EF (HFMR/REF; 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 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=1.00). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF than with HFPEF or HFMR/REF (79.9%, 71.3%, 67.5%, p<0.001), but similar between 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 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, HFPEF and HFMR/REF 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJACC. Clinical electrophysiology
Volume10
Issue number7
Pages (from-to)1675-1686
Number of pages12
ISSN2405-5018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: A MANIFEST-PF Sub-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this