scholarly journals P353Evaluation of optimal Ablation Index for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (OPTIMUM study): early experience of applying Ablation Index

EP Europace ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. i59-i60
Author(s):  
S R Lee ◽  
E K Choi ◽  
E J Lee ◽  
W S Choe ◽  
M J Cha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
Ablation Index

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