TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure
T2 - A MANIFEST-PF Sub-analysis
AU - Turagam, Mohit K
AU - Neuzil, Petr
AU - Schmidt, Boris
AU - Reichlin, Tobias
AU - Neven, Kars
AU - Metzner, Andreas
AU - Hansen, Jim
AU - Blaauw, Yuri
AU - Maury, Philippe
AU - Arentz, Thomas
AU - Sommer, Philipp
AU - Anic, Ante
AU - Anselme, Frederic
AU - Boveda, Serge
AU - Deneke, Tom
AU - Willems, Stephan
AU - van der Voort, Pepijn
AU - Tilz, Roland
AU - Funasako, Moritoshi
AU - Scherr, Daniel
AU - Wakili, Reza
AU - Steven, Daniel
AU - Kautzner, Josef
AU - Vijgen, Johan
AU - Jais, Pierre
AU - Petru, Jan
AU - Chun, Julian
AU - Roten, Laurent
AU - Füting, Anna
AU - Lemoine, Marc D
AU - Ruwald, Martin
AU - Mulder, Bart A
AU - Rollin, Anne
AU - Lehrmann, Heiko
AU - Fink, Thomas
AU - Jurisic, Zrinka
AU - Chaumont, Corentin
AU - Adelino, Raquel
AU - Nentwich, Karin
AU - Gunawardene, Melanie
AU - Ouss, Alexandre
AU - Heeger, Christian-Hendrik
AU - Manninger, Martin
AU - Bohnen, Jan-Eric
AU - Sultan, Arian
AU - Peichl, Petr
AU - Koopman, Pieter
AU - Derval, Nicolas
AU - Kueffer, Thomas
AU - Reinsch, Nico
AU - MANIFEST-PF Cooperative
N1 - Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024/7
Y1 - 2024/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85195494397
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.002
DO - 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.002
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38869506
SN - 2405-5018
VL - 10
SP - 1675
EP - 1686
JO - JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
JF - JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
IS - 7
ER -