S J Podd1, A N Sulke1, C Sugihara1, S S Furniss2. 1. Cardiology Research Department, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Eastbourne Gen Hospital, Kings Drive, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 2UD, UK. 2. Cardiology Research Department, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Eastbourne Gen Hospital, Kings Drive, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 2UD, UK. stephen.furniss@esht.nhs.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is conventionally performed using 3D electroanatomical mapping to guide point-to-point ablation. The Pulmonary Vein Ablation Catheter (PVAC)® is a phased multipolar ablation (PMRA) catheter designed for rapid PVI using radiological anatomical information. Comparison of these methods of PVI using continuous beat-to-beat monitoring was undertaken. METHODS:Fifty patients with drug-refractory, symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) were recruited. Patients all had REVEAL® XT ILR or a DDDRP permanent pacemaker (PPM) inserted prior to PVI. PPM was programmed to monitoring mode (ODO). Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PVI with either point-to-point irrigated radiofrequency ablation (Conv) or PMRA technology. Follow-up was performed at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using Holter downloads to assess arrhythmia burden. Outcomes were examined following a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: The AF burden pre-ablation, at 3-month and at 12-month post-ablations, was not significantly different (pre-ablation AF burdens (mean ±SE) Conv 16.6 ± 5.0%, PVAC 17.0 ± 5.6 %, 3 months Conv 4.0 ± 1.6 %, PVAC 4.7 ± 1.5%, 12 months Conv 4.3 ± 2.3%, PVAC 3.8 ± 1.5%). In both groups, there was a significant reduction in AF burden from pre-ablation (at 3 months p = 0.01, p = 0.04, at 12 months p = 0.04, p = 0.03 for Conv and PMRA groups, respectively). Overall success rate for zero AF recurrence at 12 months was 54%. CONCLUSION:PMRA PVI is comparable to conventional technology for AF extinction at 1 year. The PMRA is as safe as conventional technology but enables the operator to perform the procedure faster. Device monitored success rates were lower than other studies not utilising such intensive monitoring confirming that sporadic ECG monitoring is not sufficient to detect all AF recurrence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01095770. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01095770.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is conventionally performed using 3D electroanatomical mapping to guide point-to-point ablation. The Pulmonary Vein Ablation Catheter (PVAC)® is a phased multipolar ablation (PMRA) catheter designed for rapid PVI using radiological anatomical information. Comparison of these methods of PVI using continuous beat-to-beat monitoring was undertaken. METHODS: Fifty patients with drug-refractory, symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) were recruited. Patients all had REVEAL® XT ILR or a DDDRP permanent pacemaker (PPM) inserted prior to PVI. PPM was programmed to monitoring mode (ODO). Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PVI with either point-to-point irrigated radiofrequency ablation (Conv) or PMRA technology. Follow-up was performed at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using Holter downloads to assess arrhythmia burden. Outcomes were examined following a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: The AF burden pre-ablation, at 3-month and at 12-month post-ablations, was not significantly different (pre-ablation AF burdens (mean ± SE) Conv 16.6 ± 5.0%, PVAC 17.0 ± 5.6 %, 3 months Conv 4.0 ± 1.6 %, PVAC 4.7 ± 1.5%, 12 months Conv 4.3 ± 2.3%, PVAC 3.8 ± 1.5%). In both groups, there was a significant reduction in AF burden from pre-ablation (at 3 months p = 0.01, p = 0.04, at 12 months p = 0.04, p = 0.03 for Conv and PMRA groups, respectively). Overall success rate for zero AF recurrence at 12 months was 54%. CONCLUSION: PMRA PVI is comparable to conventional technology for AF extinction at 1 year. The PMRA is as safe as conventional technology but enables the operator to perform the procedure faster. Device monitored success rates were lower than other studies not utilising such intensive monitoring confirming that sporadic ECG monitoring is not sufficient to detect all AF recurrence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01095770. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01095770.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Josep Brugada; Douglas L Packer; Riccardo Cappato; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; Pierre Jais; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Bruce D Lindsay; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Andrea Natale; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Anita Wokhlu; Kristi H Monahan; David O Hodge; Samuel J Asirvatham; Paul A Friedman; Thomas M Munger; David J Bradley; Christine M Bluhm; Janis M Haroldson; Douglas L Packer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rukshen Weerasooriya; Paul Khairy; Jean Litalien; Laurent Macle; Meleze Hocini; Frederic Sacher; Nicolas Lellouche; Sebastien Knecht; Matthew Wright; Isabelle Nault; Shinsuke Miyazaki; Christophe Scavee; Jacques Clementy; Michel Haissaguerre; Pierre Jais Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Emmanouil Charitakis; Silvia Metelli; Lars O Karlsson; Antonios P Antoniadis; Ioan Liuba; Henrik Almroth; Anders Hassel Jönsson; Jonas Schwieler; Skevos Sideris; Dimitrios Tsartsalis; Elena Dragioti; Nikolaos Fragakis; Anna Chaimani Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-09