Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure
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 Scherr,Reza 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,Vivek Y Reddy,MANIFEST-PF Cooperative
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.002
2024-05-18
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.