Early recurrence of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation: a comparative analysis between cryogenic and contact force radiofrequency ablation

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditi S. Vaishnav ◽  
Evan Levine ◽  
Kristie M. Coleman ◽  
Stuart J. Beldner ◽  
Jason S. Chinitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
Early Recurrence

scholarly journals Procedural Patterns and Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zak Loring ◽  
DaJuanicia N. Holmes ◽  
Roland A. Matsouaka ◽  
Anne B. Curtis ◽  
John D. Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Class I ◽  
Cryoballoon Ablation ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Life Threatening

Background: Catheter ablation is an increasingly used treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are limited prospective, nationwide data on patient selection and procedural characteristics. This study describes patient characteristics, techniques, treatment patterns, and safety outcomes of patients undergoing AF ablation. Methods: A total of 3139 patients undergoing AF ablation between 2016 and 2018 in the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry from 24 US centers were included. Patient demographics, medical history, procedural details, and complications were abstracted. Differences between paroxysmal and patients with persistent AF were compared using Pearson χ 2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: Patients undergoing AF ablation were predominantly male (63.9%) and White (93.2%) with a median age of 65. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (67.6%), and patients with persistent AF had more comorbidities than patients with paroxysmal AF. Drug refractory, paroxysmal AF was the most common ablation indication (class I, 53.6%) followed by drug refractory, persistent AF (class I, 41.8%). Radiofrequency ablation with contact force sensing was the most common ablation modality (70.5%); 23.7% of patients underwent cryoballoon ablation. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in 94.6% of de novo ablations; the most common adjunctive lesions included left atrial roof or posterior/inferior lines, and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. Complications were uncommon (5.1%) and were life-threatening in 0.7% of cases. Conclusions: More than 98% of AF ablations among participating sites are performed for class I or class IIA indications. Contact force-guided radiofrequency ablation is the dominant technique and pulmonary vein isolation the principal lesion set. In-hospital complications are uncommon and rarely life-threatening.

Real-time local impedance monitoring to assess tissue lesion during pulmonary vein isolation: a new tool for AF ablation

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Di Cori ◽  
L Segreti ◽  
G Zucchelli ◽  
S Viani ◽  
F Tarasco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Lesion Formation ◽  
Tissue Impedance ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Contact force catheter ablation is the gold standard for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Local tissue impedance (LI) evaluation has been recently studied to evaluate lesion formation during radiofrequency ablation. Purpose Aim of the study was to assess the outcomes of an irrigated catether with LI alghorithm compared to contact force (CF)-sensing catheters in the treatment of symptomatic AF. Methods A prospective, single-center, nonrandomized study was conducted, to compare outcomes between CF-AF ablation (Group 1) and LI-AF ablation (Group 2). For Group 1 ablation was performed using the Carto 3© System with the SmartTouch SF catheter and, as ablation target, an ablation index value of 500 anterior and 400 posterior. For Group 2, ablation was performed using the Rhythmia™ System with novel ablation catheter with a dedicated algorithm (DirectSense) used to measure LI at the distal electrode of this catheter. An absolute impedance drop greater than 20Ω was used at each targeted. According to the Close Protocol, ablation included a point by point pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with an Inter-lesion space ≤5 mm in both Groups. Procedural endpoint was PVI, with confirmed bidirectional block. Results A total of 116 patients were enrolled, 59 patients in Group 1 (CF) and 57 in Group 2 (LI), 65 (63%) with a paroxismal AF and 36 (37%) with a persistent AF. Baseline patients features were not different between groups (P=ns). LI-Group showed a comparable procedural time (180±89 vs 180±56, P=0.59) but with a longer fluoroscopy time (20±12 vs 13±9 min, P=0.002). Wide antral isolation was more often observed in CF-Group (95% vs 80%, P=0.022), while LI-Group 2 required frequently additional right or left carina ablation (28% vs 14%, P=0.013). The mean LI was 106±14Ω prior to ablation and 92.5±11Ω after ablation (mean LI drop of 13.5±8Ω) during a median RF time of 26 [19–34] sec for each ablation spot. No steam pops or complications during the procedures were reported. The acute procedural success was 100%, with all PVs successfully isolated in all study patients. Regarding safety, only minor vascular complications were observed (5%), without differences between groups (p=0.97). During follow up, 9-month freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence was 86% in Group 1 and 75% in Group 2 (P=0.2). Conclusions An LI-guided PV ablation strategy seems to be safe and effective, with acute and mid-term outcomes comparable to the current contact force strategy. LI monitoring could be a promising complementary parameter to evaluate not only wall contact but also lesion formation during power delivery. Procedural Outcomes Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals The role of ablation index-guided pulmonary vein isolation in high-sensitivity TrThe role of ablation index-guided pulmonary vein isolation in high-sensitivoponin I and atrial fibrillation recurrence

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
D De Campos ◽  
L Puga ◽  
P Sousa ◽  
N Antonio ◽  
L Elvas
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ablation Index

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Ablation Index (AI) software has been associated with better freedom from atrial arrhythmias after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). There is conflicting data regarding the relationship between high sensitivity cardiac Troponin I (Hs-cTnI) and arrhythmia recurrence. The objective was to evaluate the impact of AI on Hs-cTnI level and on ablation effectiveness quotient (AEQ) and to assess if these markers are predictors of arrhythmia recurrence.  Methods Prospective observational study of consecutive patients referred for PVI for paroxysmal AF ablation from October 2017 to June 2018 according to a pre-specified AI protocol. Procedural endpoints and 2-year follow-up outcomes were assessed and compared to a retrospective cohort of conventional PVI contact-force-guided group .  Results A total of 56 patients were included: 29 patients the AI group and 27 patients in the control group. The mean age was 60.5 ± 10.3 years, 48% males. Left ventricular ejection fraction (60 ± 6 % AI vs 61 ± 5 % control, P = 0.07) and left atrium diameter (43 ± 7 mm AI vs 44 ± 6 mm control, P = 0.58) were comparable between groups. First-pass isolation was shown to be higher in the AI group (79% AI vs 44%, p= 0.01). Mean number of radiofrequency applications was lower in the AI group (93 ± 24 vs 111 ± 30, P = 0.02). Average contact-force was similar between groups (17.6 ± 4.1 g vs 22.6 ± 10.7 g, P =0.166). Patients that performed PVI guided by the AI had lower Hs-cTnI (1815 ± 1146 ng/L vs 3274 ± 1696 ng/L, p < 0.001) and lower AEQ (1.01 ± 0.7 ng/L/s vs 1.51 ± 0.7 ng/L/s, P = 0.011) compared to patients in the control group. During a mean follow-up of 26 ± 11 months, AF recurrence was documented in 10.3% of patients in the AI group and 22.2% in the control group (P = 0.223). Neither Hs-cTnI nor AEQ levels were predictors of arrhythmia recurrence.  Conclusions These data suggest that AI-guided catheter ablation is associated with reduced levels of of Hs-cTnI and AEQ. Neither Hs-cTnI and AEQ should be used to predict arrhythmia recurrence. Abstract Figure.

Pulmonary vein isolation using ablation index vs. CLOSE protocol with a surround flow ablation catheter

EP Europace ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Berte ◽  
Gabriella Hilfiker ◽  
Federico Moccetti ◽  
Thomas Schefer ◽  
Vanessa Weberndörfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
Atrial Tachycardia ◽  
Ablation Catheter ◽  
Ablation Index ◽  
First Pass ◽  
Procedure Duration

Abstract Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using ablation index (AI) incorporates stability, contact force (CF), time, and power. The CLOSE protocol combines AI and ≤6 mm interlesion distance. Safety concerns are raised about surround flow ablation catheters (STSF). To compare safety and effectiveness of an atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy using AI vs. CLOSE protocol using STSF. Methods and results First cluster was treated using AI and second cluster using CLOSE. Procedural data, safety, and recurrence of any atrial tachycardia (AT) or AF >30 s were collected prospectively. All Classes 1c and III anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) were stopped after the blanking period. In total, all 215 consecutive patients [AI: 121 (paroxysmal: n = 97), CLOSE: n = 94 (paroxysmal: n = 74)] were included. Pulmonary vein isolation was reached in all in similar procedure duration (CLOSE: 107 ± 25 vs. AI: 102 ± 24 min; P = 0.1) and similar radiofrequency time (CLOSE: 36 ± 11 vs. AI: 37 ± 8 min; P = 0.4) but first pass isolation was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [left veins: 90% vs. 80%; P < 0.05 and right veins: 84% vs. 73%; P < 0.05]. Twelve-month off-AAD freedom of AF/AT was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [79% (paroxysmal: 85%) vs. 64% (paroxysmal: 68%); P < 0.05]. Only four patients (2%) without recurrence were on AAD during follow-up. Major complications were similar (CLOSE: 2.1% vs. AI: 2.5%; P = 0.87). Conclusion The CLOSE protocol is more effective than a PVI approach solely using AI, especially in paroxysmal AF. In this off-AAD study, 79% of patients were free from AF/AT during 12-month follow-up. The STSF catheter appears to be safe using conventional CLOSE targets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document