BACKGROUND: Ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) has been proposed as a strategy to improve outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation, but the use of this technique remains contentious. We aimed to assess the impact of CFAE ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients undergoing ablation for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a random effects meta-analysis of studies comparing PVI versus PVI+CFAE ablation. The outcomes of freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia after 1 or several ablation procedures and acute procedural-related complications were assessed. Studies were searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and clinicaltrials.gov, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Thirteen studies including a total of 1415 patients were considered eligible. Additional ablation of CFAEs resulted in no improvement in mid-term procedural outcome or freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.10; P=0.17). Sensitivity analysis of 398 paroxysmal AF ablation procedures showed no incremental benefit of CFAE ablation (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P=0.42). PVI+CFAE ablation versus PVI alone did not improve the overall rate of freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia in patients with persistent AF (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.63-1.64; P=0.96) or longstanding persistent AF (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.24-2.96; P=0.79). There was no increase in procedural-related adverse events (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.41-2.75; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent safety of this technique, CFAE ablation did not improve freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. The role of CFAE ablation in addition to PVI should be questioned and other alternatives assessed to improve the outcome of AF ablation.
BACKGROUND: Ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) has been proposed as a strategy to improve outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation, but the use of this technique remains contentious. We aimed to assess the impact of CFAE ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients undergoing ablation for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a random effects meta-analysis of studies comparing PVI versus PVI+CFAE ablation. The outcomes of freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia after 1 or several ablation procedures and acute procedural-related complications were assessed. Studies were searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and clinicaltrials.gov, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Thirteen studies including a total of 1415 patients were considered eligible. Additional ablation of CFAEs resulted in no improvement in mid-term procedural outcome or freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.10; P=0.17). Sensitivity analysis of 398 paroxysmal AF ablation procedures showed no incremental benefit of CFAE ablation (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P=0.42). PVI+CFAE ablation versus PVI alone did not improve the overall rate of freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia in patients with persistent AF (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.63-1.64; P=0.96) or longstanding persistent AF (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.24-2.96; P=0.79). There was no increase in procedural-related adverse events (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.41-2.75; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent safety of this technique, CFAE ablation did not improve freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. The role of CFAE ablation in addition to PVI should be questioned and other alternatives assessed to improve the outcome of AF ablation.
Authors: Mahmood I Alhusseini; Firas Abuzaid; Albert J Rogers; Junaid A B Zaman; Tina Baykaner; Paul Clopton; Peter Bailis; Matei Zaharia; Paul J Wang; Wouter-Jan Rappel; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Miguel Rodrigo; Andreu M Climent; Alejandro Liberos; David Calvo; Francisco Fernández-Avilés; Omer Berenfeld; Felipe Atienza; Maria S Guillem Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 3.934