Fuminori Namino1, Yasuhisa Iriki2, Ryuichi Maenosono3, Hitoshi Ichiki2, Hideki Okui2, Akino Yoshimura2, Naoya Oketani2, Masakaze Matsushita3, Mitsuru Ohishi2, Teruto Hashiguchi1. 1. Clinical Laboratory Unit, Kagoshima University Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan ; Department of Laboratory and Vascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Hypertension, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima 890-8520, Japan. 3. Clinical Laboratory Unit, Kagoshima University Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE)-targeted catheter ablation (CFAE ablation) requires a high rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) termination to provide good outcomes. We determined the optimal settings of CFAE software. METHODS: In our 430 consecutive patients, AF was terminated in 97 (234/242) and 79% (149/188) of patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively, by CFAE ablation combined with (31%) or without (69%) pulmonary vein isolation, occasionally with nifekalant infusion. We analyzed 109 consecutive patients who underwent CFAE ablation to determine the optimal settings for comparing subjective versus objective decisions by the CFAE software on CARTO3. We compared three settings: the default setting (0.05-0.15 mV, 50-120 ms) and two modified settings (#1: 0.05-0.30 mV, 40-70 ms, #2: 0.05-0.13 mV, 10-20 ms). We retrospectively analyzed 11,425 points during left atrial mapping before ablation and 10,306 points that were subjectively detected and ablated as CFAE points. An interval confidence level ≥6 denoted a site with CFAE. RESULTS: With the default setting, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive productive value, and negative productive values were 67, 42, 77, 48, and 73%, respectively. With modified setting #1, the values were 78, 55, 87, 74, and 77%, respectively, versus 64, 82, 60, 53, and 91%, respectively, for modified setting #2. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that setting #1 was generally superior to the default setting, whereas setting #2 was optimal for excluding areas not requiring ablation. The optimal CFAE software setting was a voltage of 0.05-0.30 mV and an interval parameter of 40-70 ms.
BACKGROUND: Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE)-targeted catheter ablation (CFAE ablation) requires a high rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) termination to provide good outcomes. We determined the optimal settings of CFAE software. METHODS: In our 430 consecutive patients, AF was terminated in 97 (234/242) and 79% (149/188) of patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively, by CFAE ablation combined with (31%) or without (69%) pulmonary vein isolation, occasionally with nifekalant infusion. We analyzed 109 consecutive patients who underwent CFAE ablation to determine the optimal settings for comparing subjective versus objective decisions by the CFAE software on CARTO3. We compared three settings: the default setting (0.05-0.15 mV, 50-120 ms) and two modified settings (#1: 0.05-0.30 mV, 40-70 ms, #2: 0.05-0.13 mV, 10-20 ms). We retrospectively analyzed 11,425 points during left atrial mapping before ablation and 10,306 points that were subjectively detected and ablated as CFAE points. An interval confidence level ≥6 denoted a site with CFAE. RESULTS: With the default setting, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive productive value, and negative productive values were 67, 42, 77, 48, and 73%, respectively. With modified setting #1, the values were 78, 55, 87, 74, and 77%, respectively, versus 64, 82, 60, 53, and 91%, respectively, for modified setting #2. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that setting #1 was generally superior to the default setting, whereas setting #2 was optimal for excluding areas not requiring ablation. The optimal CFAE software setting was a voltage of 0.05-0.30 mV and an interval parameter of 40-70 ms.
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: Michel Haïssaguerre; Prashanthan Sanders; Mélèze Hocini; Yoshihide Takahashi; Martin Rotter; Frederic Sacher; Thomas Rostock; Li-Fern Hsu; Pierre Bordachar; Sylvain Reuter; Raymond Roudaut; Jacques Clémenty; Pierre Jaïs Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2005-11
Authors: Oussama M Wazni; Nassir F Marrouche; David O Martin; Atul Verma; Mandeep Bhargava; Walid Saliba; Dianna Bash; Robert Schweikert; Johannes Brachmann; Jens Gunther; Klaus Gutleben; Ennio Pisano; Dominico Potenza; Raffaele Fanelli; Antonio Raviele; Sakis Themistoclakis; Antonio Rossillo; Aldo Bonso; Andrea Natale Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephan Willems; Hanno Klemm; Thomas Rostock; Benedikt Brandstrup; Rodolfo Ventura; Daniel Steven; Tim Risius; Boris Lutomsky; Thomas Meinertz Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-06-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Hakan Oral; Aman Chugh; Eric Good; Sundar Sankaran; Stephen S Reich; Petar Igic; Darryl Elmouchi; David Tschopp; Thomas Crawford; Sujoya Dey; Alan Wimmer; Kristina Lemola; Krit Jongnarangsin; Frank Bogun; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hakan Oral; Bradley P Knight; Hiroshi Tada; Mehmet Ozaydin; Aman Chugh; Sohail Hassan; Christoph Scharf; Steve W K Lai; Radmira Greenstein; Frank Pelosi; S Adam Strickberger; Fred Morady Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giuseppe Stabile; Pietro Turco; Vincenzo La Rocca; Pasquale Nocerino; Eugenio Stabile; Antonio De Simone Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 29.690