Predictors of pulmonary vein non‐reconnection in the second procedure after ablation index‐guided pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation and its impact on the outcome

Abstract

IntroductionAlthough first‐pass isolation (FPI) of the pulmonary vein (PV) has been suggested as a marker for PV isolation (PVI) durability, it has not been confirmed. Non‐PV atrial fibrillation (AF) triggers were the main target in patients without PV reconnection in the second ablation procedure, but the outcome was unclear. We aimed to validate FPI as a marker of PVI durability and evaluate the outcome after the second procedure in patients without PV reconnection by comparing it to those with reconnection.MethodsAmong the 2087 patients undergoing the first ablation index‐guided radiofrequency AF ablation, 309 with atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) recurrence and undergoing the second procedure were studied. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between the patients without PV reconnection (PV non‐reconnection group, n = 142) and with reconnection (PV reconnection group, n = 167).ResultsFPI in both PV sides in the first ablation procedure was significantly more frequent in the PV non‐reconnection group (77.5%) than in the PV reconnection group (45.5%) (p < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that FPI (odds ratio, 3.71 [95% confidence interval, 2.23–6.19], p < .001) was the only predictor of PV non‐reconnection. Radiofrequency applications for non‐PV AF triggers were more frequently performed in the PV non‐reconnection group (40.8% vs. 24.6%, respectively, p < .001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that AT recurrence‐free rate was significantly lower in the PV non‐reconnection group (1‐year recurrence‐free rate, 62.7% vs. 75.4%, respectively; p = .01 by log‐rank test).ConclusionFPI was the only independent predictor of PV non‐reconnection. Despite aggressive ablation for non‐PV triggers, AT recurrence was more frequent in patients with PV non‐reconnection.