Marchlinski, Francis E.

BACKGROUND: Patients with arrhythmogenic mitral valve prolapse syndrome are at increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but studies have been limited by small sample sizes. We sought to assemble an international arrhythmogenic mitral valve prolapse syndrome registry to delineate the clinical, imaging, and treatment characteristics of patients with arrhythmogenic mitral valve prolapse syndrome who survived sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) or had sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: In this descriptive registry, we characterized patients with arrhythmogenic mitral valve prolapse syndrome who survived SCA, sustained VT, or ventricular fibrillation. Deidentified data were abstracted locally and combined centrally. RESULTS: We included 148 patients who had SCA or VT/ventricular fibrillation. Patients had a mean age of 43.7±15.4 years; 68% were women, 73% had bileaflet prolapse, 65% had mitral annular disjunction, 67% had nonsustained VT, and 59% had inferolateral T-wave inversions. Syncope (n=54, 48%) and anterolateral T-wave inversion (n=26, 22%) were relatively common. Catheter ablation was performed in 50 (35%) patients for premature ventricular complexes and in 18 (17.7%) patients for VT. Sites of origin for arrhythmias were commonly in the papillary muscles, fascicles, mitral annulus, and inferior/inferolateral left ventricle. CONCLUSIONS: In this international descriptive registry of patients with arrhythmogenic mitral valve prolapse syndrome and SCA, patients were young, women, and had bileaflet mitral valve prolapse, mitral annular disjunction, inferolateral T-wave inversions, and nonsustained VT. A history of syncope and anterolateral T-wave inversions was relatively common in patients who survived SCA or sustained VT/ventricular fibrillation.

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.

Background: Pulsed field ablation uses electrical pulses to cause nonthermal irreversible electroporation and induce cardiac cell death. Pulsed field ablation may have effectiveness comparable to traditional catheter ablation while preventing thermally mediated complications. Methods: The PULSED AF pivotal study (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF) was a prospective, global, multicenter, nonrandomized, paired single-arm study in which patients with paroxysmal (n=150) or persistent (n=150) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were treated with pulsed field ablation. All patients were monitored for 1 year using weekly and symptomatic transtelephonic monitoring; 3-, 6-, and 12-month ECGs; and 6- and 12-month 24-hour Holter monitoring. The primary effectiveness end point was freedom from a composite of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic escalation through 12 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure. The primary safety end point was freedom from a composite of serious procedure- and device-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the primary end points. Results: Pulsed field ablation was shown to be effective at 1 year in 66.2% (95% CI, 57.9 to 73.2) of patients with paroxysmal AF and 55.1% (95% CI, 46.7 to 62.7) of patients with persistent AF. The primary safety end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 4.6) in both the paroxysmal and persistent AF cohorts. Conclusions: PULSED AF demonstrated a low rate of primary safety adverse events (0.7%) and provided effectiveness consistent with established ablation technologies using a novel irreversible electroporation energy to treat patients with AF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04198701.

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.

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a primary disease of the myocardium, predominantly caused by genetic defects in proteins of the cardiac intercalated disc, particularly, desmosomes. Transmission is mostly autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance. ACM also has wide phenotype variability, ranging from premature ventricular contractions to sudden cardiac death and heart failure. Among other drivers and modulators of phenotype, inflammation in response to viral infection and immune triggers have been postulated to be an aggravator of cardiac myocyte damage and necrosis. This theory is supported by multiple pieces of evidence, including the presence of inflammatory infiltrates in more than two-thirds of ACM hearts, detection of different cardiotropic viruses in sporadic cases of ACM, the fact that patients with ACM often fulfill the histological criteria of active myocarditis, and the abundance of anti–desmoglein-2, antiheart, and anti-intercalated disk autoantibodies in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. In keeping with the frequent familial occurrence of ACM, it has been proposed that, in addition to genetic predisposition to progressive myocardial damage, a heritable susceptibility to viral infections and immune reactions may explain familial clustering of ACM. Moreover, considerable in vitro and in vivo evidence implicates activated inflammatory signaling in ACM. Although the role of inflammation/immune response in ACM is not entirely clear, inflammation as a driver of phenotype and a potential target for mechanism-based therapy warrants further research. This review discusses the present evidence supporting the role of inflammatory and immune responses in ACM pathogenesis and proposes opportunities for translational and clinical investigation.

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an inherited cardiomyopathy characterised by ventricular arrhythmia and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Numerous genetic determinants and phenotypic manifestations have been discovered in ACM, posing a significant clinical challenge. Further to this, wider evaluation of family members has revealed incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity in ACM, suggesting a complex genotype-phenotype relationship. This review details the genetic basis of ACM with specific genotype-phenotype associations, providing the reader with a nuanced perspective of this condition; whilst also proposing a future roadmap to delivering precision medicine-based management in ACM.

Flex Tip Comparative AblationIntroductionNext‐generation catheters have been developed to reduce irrigation volume and preserve power delivery. A novel design uses a flexible tip (FlexAbility™ catheter) that directs flow to the contact surface. Because of recent safety issues with new catheters, we undertook a study in a canine heart with 3 irrigated catheters to compare efficacy and safety.MethodsEndocardial ablation was performed by 2 independent operators in 12 anesthetized canines with the FlexAbility (St. Jude Medical), ThermoCool™ (Biosense Webster), and ThermoCool™ SF (Biosense Webster) catheters. Endocardial RF lesions were delivered with each catheter in all 4 chambers of each animal for 52 ± 16 seconds. Each chamber was randomized to receive ablation from one catheter with recording of safety events. Cardiac pathology was performed with triphenyl tetrazolium chloride stain.ResultsAverage lesion dimensions were not significantly different between the 3 catheters. FlexAbility™ demonstrated a lower risk of steam pops relative to ThermoCool SF (P‐value = 0.013) despite equal mean power and radiofrequency time. High‐temperature generator shutdowns were observed with FlexAbility™ but not with either ThermoCool catheter. High‐temperature shutdowns were associated with larger average impedance drops (28.5 ohms vs. 19 ohms) without compromising lesion size.ConclusionsThe FlexAbility™ tip is safe and effective with no significant difference in lesion sizes compared to both standard ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF. FlexAbility™ has a significantly lower risk of steam pops compared to ThermoCool SF in a beating heart as defined predominantly by an abrupt rise of impedance.