Anselme, Frédéric

Abstract Background and Aims Stroke and systemic embolism are recognized but poorly characterized complications of atrial fibrillation (AF) and left atrial flutter (AFL) catheter ablation. Their incidence, outcomes, and procedural associations remain insufficiently defined. Methods Retrospective global registry was initiated by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Committee. A secure database captured data from ablation centres worldwide on general AF and left AFL ablation activity, as well as detailed information on patients with symptomatic embolic events between 2017 and 2024. Results Overall, 204 centres reported 335 743 ablation procedures and 550 embolic events (incidence 0.16%). Centre-level rate ranged from 0% to 3.1%. Most events were cerebral (94%), followed by peripheral (5%), and combined (1%). Coronary air embolism accounted for 62% of all peripheral events. Intraprocedural events occurred in 93 patients (17%), within 72 h in 357 (78%) and beyond 72 h in 100 (22%); 128 cases (23%) were diagnosed after hospital discharge. Nonparoxysmal AF (0.23% vs 0.15%; P < .001), centre experience, and ablation energy source (radiofrequency, 0.16%; cryoballoon, 0.16%; pulsed field ablation, 0.25%; laserballoon, 0.88%; P < .001) were associated with embolic risk. Median NIHSS score after stroke was 4 (interquartile range, 2–9). Three-month follow-up was available for 518 patients with embolism (95%): 181 (35%) had sequelae and 16 (3%) died. Conclusions Symptomatic embolic events are infrequent but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most events occur early, though a substantial proportion arise later. Higher event rates were observed with laser and possibly with pulsed field ablation. A greater centre experience was associated with a lower embolism incidence.

BACKGROUND: The ability to predict recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in response to guideline-directed therapy among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy is desired. We sought to determine whether left ventricular endocardial unipolar voltage measured during invasive electroanatomic mapping could be used to predict LVEF recovery among those with recent-onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: We analyzed the left ventricular voltage maps of patients included in the eMAP trial (Electrogram-Guided Myocardial Advanced Phenotyping; NCT03293381), a prospective, nonrandomized, interventional trial conducted at 2 institutions between 2017 and 2020. Patients had recent-onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy defined by LVEF ≤45% and development of symptoms or signs of heart failure within the past 6 months. Detailed voltage maps of the left ventricular endocardium were generated using the Carto electroanatomic mapping system. Abnormal unipolar amplitude was defined as <8.27 mV. The primary end point was recovery of LVEF (Recovery) defined by a 1-year LVEF ≥50% or ≥45% with ≥10% increase from baseline. RESULTS: Of the 29 enrolled patients (median age, 49 years [25th percentile, 39; 75th percentile, 59], 8 females [27.6%]), LVEF recovered in 13 (44.8%) by 1-year follow-up. The percentage of total endocardial surface area with unipolar voltage abnormality (AUA) was significantly lower among Recovery patients than No Recovery patients (18.2% [25th percentile, 6.4; 75th percentile, 22.4] versus 80.0% [25th percentile, 29.5; 75th percentile, 90.9]; P =0.004). Percent AUA was associated with lower likelihood of Recovery (odds ratio, 0.64 per 10% increase in AUA; 95% CI, 0.47–0.88; P =0.006). A 28% cutoff value for percent AUA was 92% sensitive and 75% specific with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63–0.99; P =0.001) for predicting recovery versus no recovery. The majority of patients (12 of 13; 92.3%) with a percent AUA >28% did not recover. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular unipolar voltage abnormality is a potent predictor of LVEF recovery among patients recently diagnosed with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Detailed left ventricular unipolar voltage mapping could therefore be used as a valuable prognostic tool in guiding treatment decisions.

AbstractAimsTreatment guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suggest that patients should be managed with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) before undergoing catheter ablation (CA). This study evaluated whether pulmonary vein isolation employing cryoballoon CA is superior to AAD therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence in rhythm control naive patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).Methods and resultsA total of 218 treatment naive patients with symptomatic PAF were randomized (1 : 1) to cryoballoon CA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III) and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was ≥1 episode of recurrent AA (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) &gt;30 s after a prespecified 90-day blanking period. Secondary endpoints included the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) and recurrence of symptomatic palpitations (evaluated via patient diaries). Freedom from AA was achieved in 82.2% of subjects in the cryoballoon arm and 67.6% of subjects in the AAD arm (HR = 0.48, P = 0.01). There were no group differences in the time-to-first (HR = 0.76, P = 0.28) or overall incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.79, P = 0.28] of SAEs. The incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower in the cryoballoon (7.61 days/year) compared with the AAD arm (18.96 days/year; IRR = 0.40, P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsCryoballoon CA was superior to AAD therapy, significantly reducing AA recurrence in treatment naive patients with PAF. Additionally, cryoballoon CA was associated with lower symptom recurrence and a similar rate of SAEs compared with AAD therapy.