Key result
Emergent pulsed field ablation for AF during acute heart failure hospitalization showed 79% estimated freedom from arrhythmia recurrence at 1 year compared to 64% with thermal ablation (p=0.44).
Why the study?
Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for AF, but the feasibility and outcomes of emergent AF ablation performed during hospitalization for acute HF needed evaluation.
Does pulsed field ablation compared to thermal ablation improve outcomes in patients undergoing emergent ablation for atrial fibrillation during acute heart failure hospitalization?
Cohort (n=46)
Does pulsed field ablation compared to thermal ablation improve outcomes in patients undergoing emergent ablation for atrial fibrillation during acute heart failure hospitalization?
Absolute Event Rate: 79% vs 64%
p-value: p=0.44
Emergent catheter ablation for AF during acute HF hospitalization is feasible, with pulsed field ablation offering significantly shorter procedure times compared to thermal ablation.
PFA feasible with shorter times in acute HF; hypothesis-generating for arrhythmia outcomes, needs RCTs before practice change.
Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) can cause or aggravate heart failure (HF). Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for AF. This study focused on the feasibility and outcomes of emergent AF ablation performed during hospitalization for acute HF. Methods and Results We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent emergent CA for AF during hospitalization for acute HF in 2018–2024. Arrhythmia recurrence was the primary endpoint. The combination of arrhythmia recurrence, HF hospitalization, and all‐cause death was the secondary endpoint. Patients were censored 1 year after the index procedure. We included 46 patients, 35% females, with median age of 67 [interquartile rage: 61, 72] years and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25 [23, 28]%. Thermal CA was performed in 14 patients, and pulsed field ablation (PFA) in 32 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter with PFA compared to thermal CA (77 [57, 91] vs. 166 [142, 200] minutes, p < 0.001). Fluoroscopy time was longer with PFA (9.5 [7.6, 12.0] vs. 3.9 [2.9, 6.0] minutes, p < 0.001), with a borderline trend towards higher radiation dose (75 [53, 170] vs. 50 [30, 94] μGy.m 2 , p = 0.056). Extrapulmonary ablation was frequent (86% and 84% for thermal CA and PFA, p > 0.9). The estimated freedom from the primary endpoint was 79% after PFA and 64% after thermal CA ( p = 0.44). The estimated freedom from the secondary endpoint was 76% after PFA and 57% after thermal CA ( p = 0.43). LVEF improved by 24% ± 2% ( p < 0.001) in patients with the first manifestation of HF and by 14% ± 4% ( p = .004) in patients with decompensated HF diagnosed earlier. Conclusions Emergent CA of AF during acute HF hospitalization is safe and associated with improved LVEF and good clinical outcomes. In the PFA era, the rate of these procedures is progressively increasing as they are readily available and easy to perform compared to thermal ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marek et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation and acute heart failure (n=46). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs. Thermal catheter ablation (CA) was evaluated on Arrhythmia recurrence (p=0.44). Emergent pulsed field ablation for AF during acute heart failure hospitalization showed 79% estimated freedom from arrhythmia recurrence at 1 year compared to 64% with thermal ablation (p=0.44).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: