Background wide antral pulmonary vein (PV) catheter ablation (CA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is safe and effective when permanent trans-mural lesions are achieved without causing harm to surrounding anatomical structures. Atrio-esophageal fistula, due to its high mortality, is the most dreadful complication related to CA for AF, therefore alternative radiofrequency (RF) approaches to reduce or eliminate this complication are currently studied. The shallower but wider lesions of high power short duration (HPSD) ablation might represent a safe alternative. Purpose to compare the rate of thermal esophageal lesions in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF undergoing CA assigned to the 2 different RF modality. Methods one-hundred patients with paroxysmal and 100 with persistent AF will be alternatively assigned to undergo CA with the FlexAbility™ (HPSD group: 70W, 41°, 8 seconds) or the TactiCath™ (LSI-group: 35W, 41°, LSI: 5-5.5 posterior wall, up to 6 anywhere else) catheter. A 3-D mapping system, a steerable sheath and adenosine-test (30mg) were used in all patients. Posterior wall (PW) isolation in addition to PV isolation was performed in all, and patients with persistent AF were additionally treated with mitral and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. Insertion of an esophageal probe was always attempted, and all patients underwent upper endoscopy 24 to 48 hours after CA. Results between June and October 2019, 71 patients (68 ± 10 years old, 32 (45%) female, 44 (60%) paroxysmal AF, AF duration 58 ± 81 months) were alternatively assigned to HPSD (36, 51%) or LSI-guided (35, 49%) ablation. No differences in clinical characteristics were found between groups. After 45 ± 18min and 30 ± 14 min of procedural and RF time, all PVs were isolated, and all spontaneous and adenosine-induced reconnections treated. Successful PW isolation was achieved with an additional 8 ± 3 and 7 ± 3 min of procedural and RF time. When HPSD and LSI-guided groups are compared, a similar rate of clinically non-relevant and self-healing thermal lesions at endoscopy was found (10, 27.8% vs. 10, 28.6%). Independent of the treatment group, a higher peak temperature identified patients with esophageal lesions (43.2° vs. 42°; P=.0065). A peak temperature value of 43.1° best identify patients most likely to develop thermal lesions (AUC 0.71, SE 84%, SP 39%). Interestingly, none of the 11 patients in whom esophageal probe insertion was not possible or attempted developed thermal lesions in comparison to 20 (33%) patients who underwent esophageal temperature monitoring (P=.0046). Conclusions: no difference in thermal induced esophageal lesions were found when the two different RF approach (HPSD vs. LSI guided) were compared. Interestingly, lack of temperature monitoring with an esophageal probe is associated with no thermal lesions at endoscopy.
Background permanent trans-mural lesions not affecting surrounding anatomical structures is the goal of safe and effective wide antral pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing catheter ablation (CA). Time, energy and contact force are parameters related to lesion goodness and incorporated in a complex formula (i.e. the lesion index, LSI™, Abbott). This parameter is emerging as the gold standard for PV isolation. Recently, the shallower but wider lesions created by high power short duration (HPSD) ablation has came to attention. Purpose to compare acute reconnection rate, procedural parameters, and complication rates in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF undergoing CA. Methods one-hundred patients with paroxysmal and 100 with persistent AF will be alternatively assigned to undergo PV isolation with the FlexAbility™ (HPSD group, 70W, 41°, 8 seconds) or the TactiCath™ (LSI-group: 35W, 41°, LSI: 5-5.5 posterior wall, up to ≥6 anywhere else) catheter. A 3-D mapping system (Ensite Precision™) and a steerable sheath (Agilis™, both Abbott) were always used. Adenosine (30mg) is given after PV isolation and ≥ 20 minutes waiting time. Posterior wall isolation was added in all, and patients with persistent AF were additionally treated with mitral and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. Results: between June and October 2019, 71 patients (68 ± 10 years old, 32 (45%) female, 44 (60%) paroxysmal AF, AF duration 58 ± 81 months) were alternatively assigned to HPSD (36, 51%) or LSI-guided (35, 49%) ablation. No difference in clinical characteristics was found between groups. After 44 ± 18 and 30 ± 14min of procedural and RF time, all PVs were isolated, and all 17 (24%) reconnections treated with an additional 4 ± 3 and 3 ± 2min, respectively. In 8 ± 3 and 7 ± 3 min of procedural and RF time, the PW was successfully isolated in all. PV isolation (34 ± 12min vs. 56 ± 16min; P<.0001), RF (18 ± 5min vs. 41 ± 9min; P<.0001), and total procedural (138 ± 34min vs. 162 ± 34min; P=.0026) time were shorter in the HPSD group. X-Ray time and effective dose did not differ. A similar rate of acute reconnections (9, 25% vs. 8 23%) was found when HPSD and LSI were compared. A higher, although statistically not significant, number of steam pops was observed in the HPSD (14, 39%) vs. LSI (8, 23%) group, possibly related to the higher incidence of moderate pericardial effusion (>0.5mm, <20mm) found the day following the ablation (10, 28% vs. 2, 6%; P=.0238). No further complications related to CA were detected. Conclusions in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF undergoing their first CA, HPSD ablation is faster than an LSI-guided approach. Acute efficacy (reconnection rate) is similar. Although a higher rate of haemodynamically non-relevant pericardial effusions were seen in the HPSD group, these were all treated medically and the general safety profile of this approach is excellent and comparable to LSI ablation.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.