Selected Publication:

SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb

Turagam, MK; Neuzil, P; Schmidt, B; Reichlin, T; Neven, K; Metzner, A; Hansen, J; Blaauw, Y; Maury, P; Arentz, T; Sommer, P; Anic, A; Anselme, F; Boveda, S; Deneke, T; Willems, S; van, der, Voort, P; Tilz, R; Funasako, M; Scherr, D; Wakili, R; Steven, D; Kautzner, J; Vijgen, J; Jais, P; Petru, J; Chun, J; Roten, L; Füting, A; Lemoine, MD; Ruwald, M; Mulder, BA; Rollin, A; Lehrmann, H; Fink, T; Jurisic, Z; Chaumont, C; Adelino, R; Nentwich, K; Gunawardene, M; Ouss, A; Heeger, CH; Manninger, M; Bohnen, JE; Sultan, A; Peichl, P; Koopman, P; Derval, N; Kueffer, T; Reinsch, N; Reddy, VY, , MANIFEST-PF, Cooperative.
Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2024; Doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.002
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

 

Co-authors Med Uni Graz

Manninger-Wünscher Martin

Scherr Daniel

Altmetrics:

Dimensions Citations:

Plum Analytics:

Scite (citation analytics):

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: 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.

Find related publications in this database (Keywords)

atrial fibrillation

heart failure

HFpEF

HFrEF

pulsed field ablation

© Med Uni Graz • Imprint