Aims The multielectrode radiofrequency balloon catheter (RFB) has been developed to achieve safe and effective pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. This single-centre study aimed to evaluate the midterm clinical outcome and predictors of single-shot PVI with the novel RFB. Methods and results All consecutive patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF undergoing first-time PVI with the RFB were prospectively included. Clinical and procedural parameters were systematically collected. The primary safety endpoint was defined as any major periprocedural complications. The primary efficacy endpoint consisted of freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATas) lasting >30 s during the follow-up after a 3-month blanking period. Persistent single-shot PVI was defined as PVI achieved with a single RFB application without acute reconnection.  A total of 104 consecutive patients (mean age 64.3 ± 11.4 years, 56.7% males) were included. 15 patients (14.4%) presented with persistent AF. The procedure time was 59.0 min with a dwell time of 20.0 min. One major complication occurred in one patient. At a mean follow-up of 10.1 ± 5.3 months, freedom from ATas was 82.9%. ATas occurred in 14 patients, 11/69 patients (15.9%) with paroxysmal AF and 3/13 (23.1%) with persistent AF. The best cut-offs to predict persistent single-shot PVI were impedance drop >19.2 Ω [area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74] and temperature rise >11.1° C (AUC 0.77). Conclusion In a large cohort of patients undergoing PVI with the RFB, the complication rate was 1%. At a mid-term follow-up of 10.1 ± 5.3 months, freedom from ATas was 82.9%. Specific cut-offs of impedance drop and temperature rise may be useful to predict persistent single-shot isolation.

Electrical isolation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is the cornerstone of invasive treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, arrhythmia-free survival of a PVI only approach is suboptimal in patients with persistent and long-term persistent AF. Hybrid AF ablation has been developed with the aim of combining the advantages of a thoracoscopic surgical ablation (direct visualization of anatomical structures to be spared and the possibility to perform epicardial lesions) and endocardial ablation (possibility to check line block, confirm PVI, and possibility to perform cavotricuspid isthmus ablation). Patient selection is of utmost importance. In persistent and long-term persistent AF, hybrid AF ablation demonstrated promising results in terms of AF free survival. It has been associated with a relatively low complication rate if performed in centers with expertise in hybrid procedures and experience with both surgical and endocardial ablation. Different techniques have been described, with different approaches and lesion sets. The aim of this review is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of hybrid AF ablation.

Background: Posterior wall (PW) isolation is an important adjunctive ablation target in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Traditionally performed with point-by-point radiofrequency (RF) ablation, PW isolation has also been performed with different cryoballoon technologies.We aimed at assessing the feasibility of PW isolation with the novel RF balloon catheter Heliostar TM (Biosense Webster, CA, USA). Methods:We prospectively enrolled 32 consecutive patients with persistent AF scheduled for firsttime ablation with the Heliostar TM device. Procedural data were compared with those from 96 consecutive persistent AF patients undergoing pulmonary vein (PV) plus PW isolation with a cryoballoon device. The ratio RF balloon/cryoballoon was 1:3 for each operator involved in the study, aiming at avoiding any imbalance related to different experience.Results: Single-shot PV isolation was documented in a significantly higher number of cases with the RF balloon technology compared to cryoballoon ablation (89.8% vs 81.0%; p=0.02, respectively).PW isolation was achieved with a similar number of balloon applications between the two groups (11±4 with the RF balloon versus 11±2 with the cryoballoon; p=0.16), but in a significantly shorter time among RF balloon patients (228±72s versus 1274±277s with cryoballoon; p<0.001). Primary safety endpoint occurred in none of the RF balloon patients versus 5 (5.2%) patients in the cryoballoon group (p=0.33). Primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in all (100%) RF balloon patients versus 93 (96.9%) cryoballoon ones (p=0.57). Oesophageal endoscopy did not show any signs of thermal lesions in RF balloon patients with luminal temperature rise.Conclusions: RF balloon-based PW isolation was safe and promoted shorter procedure times compared to similar cryoballoon-based ablation procedures.