Our study highlights significant inaccuracies in NOAC prescribing. Patients commenced on NOACs should be assessed and followed up in a multidisciplinary AF clinic to ensure safe and effective prescribing and stroke prevention.

Aims The safety of Ablation Index (AI)-guided 50 W ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain, and mid-term clinical outcomes have not been described. The interplay between AI and its components at 50 W has not been reported. Methods and results Eighty-eight consecutive AF patients (44% paroxysmal) underwent AI-guided 50 W ablation. Procedural and 12-month clinical outcomes were compared with 93 consecutive controls (65% paroxysmal) who underwent AI-guided ablation using 35–40 W. Posterior wall isolation (PWI) was performed in 44 (50%) and 23 (25%) patients in the 50 and 35–40 W groups, respectively, P < 0.001. The last 10 patients from each group underwent analysis of individual lesions (n = 1230) to explore relationships between different powers and the AI components. Pulmonary vein isolation was successful in all patients. Posterior wall isolation was successful in 41/44 (93.2%) and 22/23 (95.7%) in the 50 and 35–40 W groups, respectively (P = 0.685). Radiofrequency times (20 vs. 26 min, P < 0.001) and total procedure times (130 vs. 156 min, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the 50 W group. No complication or steam pop was seen in either group. Twelve-month freedom from arrhythmia was similar (80.2% vs. 82.8%, P = 0.918). A higher proportion of lesions in the 50 W group were associated with impedance drop >7 Ω (54.6% vs. 45.5%, P < 0.001). Excessive ablation (AI >600 anteriorly, >500 posteriorly) was more frequent in the 50 W group (9.7% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.001). Conclusion Ablation Index-guided 50 W AF ablation is as safe and effective as lower powers and results in reduced ablation and procedure times. Radiofrequency lesions are more likely to be therapeutic, but there is a higher risk of delivering excessive ablation.

Background Very high power short duration (vHPSD) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) may reduce ablation times and improve patient tolerability, permitting pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) under mild conscious sedation (mCS) and promoting same day discharge (SDD). Methods First, a retrospective feasibility study was performed at 2 tertiary cardiac centres in the UK. Consecutive cases of first-time PVI using vHPSD ablation with 90 W lesions for up to 4 s were compared against cases performed using standard RF (sRF) and cryoballoon (Cryo) therapy. Subsequently, a prospective study of patients who had vHPSD or Cryo exclusively under mCS was undertaken. Questionnaires based on Likert and visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to measure anxiety, discomfort and pain. Results In total, 182 patients (59 vHPSD, 62 sRF and 61 Cryo) were included in the retrospective study, with 53 (90%) of vHPSD cases successfully performed under mCS. PVI ablation time in the vHPSD group (5.8 ± 1.7 min) was shorter than for sRF (16.5 ± 6.3 min, p < 0.001) and Cryo (17.5 ± 5.9 min, p < 0.001). Fifty-one vHPSD and 52 Cryo patients were included in the prospective study. PVI ablation time in the vHPSD group was shorter than for the Cryo group (6.4 ± 2.9 min vs 17.9 ± 5.7 min, p < 0.001), but overall procedure duration was longer (121 ± 39 min vs 95 ± 20 min, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the patient experience of anxiety, discomfort or pain. SDD rates were the same in both groups (61% vs 67%, p = 0.49). Conclusions vHPSD RFA for PVI can be performed under mCS to achieve SDD rates comparable to cryoablation, without compromising patient experience.

Background Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) traditionally requires the use of circular mapping catheter (CMC) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a CMC‐free approach for AF ablation performed by a contiguous optimized (CLOSE) ablation protocol. Methods A CLOSE‐guided and CMC‐free PVI protocol with a single transseptal puncture was attempted in 67 patients with AF. Left atrial (LA) CARTO voltage mapping was performed with the ablation catheter pre‐ and postablation to demonstrate entry block into the pulmonary veins, and pacing maneuvers were used to confirm exit block. Results The CMC‐free approach was successful in achieving PVI in 66 (98.5%) cases, with procedure time of 148 ± 32 minutes, ablation time of 27.5 ± 5.7 minutes, and fluoroscopy time of 7.8 ± 1.0 minutes. First‐pass PVI was seen in 58(86.5%) patients, and pacing maneuvers successfully identified the residual gap in eight of the other nine cases. No complication was observed. At 12 months follow‐up, 60 (89.6%) patients remained free from AF. The CMC‐free approach resulted in a cost saving of £47,190. Conclusion A CMC‐free CLOSE‐guided PVI approach is feasible, safe, and cost‐saving, and is associated with excellent clinical outcomes at 1 year.

Aims Incorporating a steerable sheath that can be visualized using an electroanatomical mapping (EAM) system may allow for more efficient mapping and catheter placement, while reducing radiation exposure, during ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated fluoroscopy usage and procedure times when a visualizable steerable sheath was used compared with a non-visualizable steerable sheath for catheter ablation for AF. Methods and results In this retrospective, observational, single-centre study, patients underwent catheter ablation for AF using a steerable sheath that is visualizable using the CARTO EAM (VIZIGO; n = 57) or a non-visualizable steerable sheath (n = 34). The acute procedural success rate was 100%, with no acute complications in either group. Use of the visualizable sheath vs. the non-visualizable sheath was associated with a significantly shorter fluoroscopy time [median (first quartile, third quartile), 3.4 (2.1, 5.4) vs. 5.8 (3.8, 8.6) min; P = 0.003], significantly lower fluoroscopy dose [10.0 (5.0, 20.0) vs. 18.5 (12.3, 34.0) mGy; P = 0.015], and significantly lower dose area product [93.0 (48.0, 197.9) vs. 182.2 (124.5, 355.0) μGy·m2; P = 0.017] but with a significantly longer mapping time [12.0 (9.0, 15.0) vs. 9.0 (7.0, 11.0) min; P = 0.004]. There was no significant difference between the visualizable and non-visualizable sheaths in skin-to-skin time [72.0 (60.0, 82.0) vs. 72.0 (55.5, 80.8) min; P = 0.623]. Conclusion In this retrospective study, use of a visualizable steerable sheath for catheter ablation of AF significantly reduced radiation exposure vs. a non-visualizable steerable sheath. Although mapping time was longer with the visualizable sheath, the overall procedure time was not increased.