Background
Radiofrequency high‐power ablation appears to be a novel concept for atrial fibrillation (AF). The ablation index (AI) value has been associated with durability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).
Objectives
This study aimed to report the procedural data and initial results of a combined ablation technique using AI‐guided high‐power (AI‐HP; 50 W) ablation for PVI.
Methods
Symptomatic AF patients were consecutively enrolled and underwent wide‐area contiguous circumferential PVI. Contact‐force catheters were used, ablation power was set to 50 W targeting AI values (550 anterior and 400 posterior). Esophageal temperature was monitored during procedure, all patients underwent postablation esophageal endoscopy.
Results
PVI was achieved in all (n = 50, mean age: 68 ± 9 years, female: 60%) patients, rate of first‐round PVI was 92%. A total of N = 2105 AI‐guided ablation lesions were analyzed. Comparing left anterior wall vs left posterior wall and right anterior wall vs right posterior wall, mean ablation time (s) per lesion was 20.5 ± 8 vs 8.6 ± 3 and 12.2 ± 4 vs 9.3 ± 3; mean contact force (g): 17.1 ± 12 vs 25.4 ± 14 and 33.7 ± 13 vs 21.0 ± 11; mean AI: 547 ± 48 vs 445 ± 55 and 555 ± 56 vs 440 ± 47 (all P < .0001). Procedure and fluoroscopy time (minute) were 55.6 ± 6.6 and 6 ± 1.7, respectively. Only one (2%) patient had a minimal esophageal lesion. During In‐hospital and 1‐month follow‐up no major complications such as death, stroke, tamponade, or atriaesophageal fistula (AE) occurred. Preliminary 6‐month follow‐up showed 48 of 50 (96%) patients were free from clinical AF/atrial tachycardia recurrence.
Conclusion
AI‐HP (50 W) ablation appears to be a feasible, safe, fast, and effective ablation technique for PVI.
Background:
Pulsed field ablation represents an energy source specific for ablation of cardiac arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation. The aim of the study was to describe the adoption and the process of streamlining procedures with a new ablation technology.
Methods:
All-comer atrial fibrillation patients (n=191; mean age 69±12 years) underwent catheter ablation with a pulsed field ablation ablation device exclusively using analog-sedation. In the validation phase (n=25), device electrogram quality was compared with a circular mapping catheter to assess pulmonary vein isolation and esophageal temperature monitoring was used. In the streamline phase (n=166), a single-catheter approach was implemented. Postprocedural cerebral magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 53 patients. In 52 patients, esophageal endoscopy was performed at day 1 after the procedure. Follow-up was performed using 72 hours Holter ECGs.
Results:
On a pulmonary vein basis, pulmonary vein isolation rate was 100% including a single shot isolation rate of 99.5%. The electrogram information of the pulsed field ablation catheter and the circular mapping catheter were 100% congruent. Neither esophageal temperature rises nor esophageal thermal injury were observed. Two minor strokes occurred, presumable due to air embolism during catheter exchanges through the large bore sheath (13.8 F ID). In the streamline phase, reduced procedure times (46±14 versus 38±13 minutes,
P
=0.004), no further strokes and a low incidence of silent cerebral injury (10/53 patients; 19%) were noted. During short-term follow-up, 17/191 patients (9%) had a atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence.
Conclusions:
The pulsed field ablation device allows for simple and safe simple single shot pulmonary vein isolation using standard sedation protocols. Procedural speed and efficacy are remarkable and streamlining measures have added safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.