Hummel, John D.

Despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, during the past 2 years, there have been numerous advances in our understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms and diagnosis and in new therapies. We increased our understanding of risk factors and mechanisms of atrial arrhythmias, the prediction of atrial arrhythmias, response to treatment, and outcomes using machine learning and artificial intelligence. There have been new technologies and techniques for atrial fibrillation ablation, including pulsed field ablation. There have been new randomized trials in atrial fibrillation ablation, giving insight about rhythm control, and long-term outcomes. There have been advances in our understanding of treatment of inherited disorders such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. We have gained new insights into the recurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of various conditions such as myocarditis and inherited cardiomyopathic disorders. Novel computational approaches may help predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and localize arrhythmias to guide ablation. There are further advances in our understanding of noninvasive radiotherapy. We have increased our understanding of the role of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing to maintain synchronous ventricular activation. There have also been significant advances in the defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, remote monitoring, and infection prevention. There have been advances in our understanding of the pathways and mechanisms involved in atrial and ventricular arrhythmogenesis.

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel form of ablation using electrical fields to ablate cardiac tissue. There are only limited data assessing the feasibility and safety of this type of ablation in humans. Methods: PULSED AF (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; unique identifier: NCT04198701) is a nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter, global, premarket clinical study. The first-in-human pilot phase evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation using a novel PFA system delivering bipolar, biphasic electrical fields through a circular multielectrode array catheter (PulseSelect; Medtronic, Inc). Thirty-eight patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were treated in 6 centers in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands. The primary outcomes were ability to achieve acute pulmonary vein isolation intraprocedurally and safety at 30 days. Results: Acute electrical isolation was achieved in 100% of pulmonary veins (n=152) in the 38 patients. Skin-to-skin procedure time was 160±91 minutes, left atrial dwell time was 82±35 minutes, and fluoroscopy time was 28±9 minutes. No serious adverse events related to the PFA system occurred in the 30-day follow-up including phrenic nerve injury, esophageal injury, stroke, or death. Conclusions: In this first-in-human clinical study, 100% pulmonary vein isolation was achieved using only PFA with no PFA system–related serious adverse events. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

AbstractBackgroundAn internal risk stratification algorithm was developed to decrease the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during lead extractions (LEs).ObjectiveTo report upon the impact of a risk stratification algorithm (RISE [RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction] protocol) on outcomes of LEs in a high‐volume center.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LEs database was performed to identify features associated with MACEs. On the basis of the retrospective data, the RISE protocol differentiated LEs procedures into “High” and “Low” risk for occurrence of MACEs. High‐risk LEs included dual‐coil defibrillator lead (≥3 years), pacemaker and single‐coil lead (≥5 years), and any StarFix coronary sinus lead. During the prospective evaluation of the RISE protocol, “High‐risk” LEs were performed in an operating room (OR) or hybrid laboratory with the cardiac anesthesiologist, OR nursing team, perfusionist in the room, and a cardiac surgeon on the premises. “Low‐risk” LEs were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory with anesthesia provided by EP nursing team. The preintervention (pre‐RISE) and postintervention (post‐RISE) group spanned 19 and 40 months and consisted of 449 (632 leads) and 751 patients (1055 leads), respectively. The primary outcome of MACEs in the two groups was compared.ResultsProtocol compliance was 100%. The primary outcome of MACEs occurred in 15 patients (3.34%) before and 12 (1.6%) after implementation of the RISE protocol (P = .04).ConclusionRISE identified a low‐risk group where minimal resources are needed and allowed for rapid intervention in the high‐risk group that reduced the consequences of MACEs.