Aims: To define predictors of complications of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and compare safety between different ablation techniques. Methods and results: One thousand patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) (age 60 ± 10, 72% males, CHA2DS2-VASc score 1 ± 1) underwent PVI using various techniques: conventional PVI (CPVI) using mapping with irrigated point-per-point RF ablation (n = 576), multi-electrode RF ablation with the pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) (n = 272) or high density mesh ablator (HDMA) (n = 59) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation (n = 93). A complication was defined as any procedure-related adverse event resulting in permanent injury or death, requiring intervention or treatment, or prolonging/requiring hospitalization for >48 h. A total of 105 (10.5%) complications occurred in 101 (10.1%) patients. No periprocedural death occurred. Most frequent complications were vascular complications (4%) and pericarditis (3.1%). Seven patients experienced permanent deficit due to PV stenosis (n = 3, 1 CPVI, 2 PVAC) (n = 3) and phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) (n = 4, 3 CPVI, 1 PVAC). Independent predictors of complications were female sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.79; P = 0.023], CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.01-1.52; P = 0.039), and ablation technique (P = 0.006) in multivariable-adjusted analysis. Among the different techniques, CB (P = 0.047) and PVAC ablation (P = 0.003) had lowest overall complication rates. Complication profile (type/severity) differed between techniques (association between CB and PNP, CPVI and pericardial injury, PVAC and transient ischaemic attack/PV stenosis). Conclusion: Overall complication rate of PVI with various techniques is 10.5%. Permanent deficit occurred only after PVAC and CPVI in 0.7% of patients. Female sex and a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score increase, while PVAC and CB-PVI decrease, overall risk. Differences in overall safety and individual complication profile make selection of the ablation technique in relation to clinical risk profile possible.
Aims: To define predictors of complications of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and compare safety between different ablation techniques. Methods and results: One thousand patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) (age 60 ± 10, 72% males, CHA2DS2-VASc score 1 ± 1) underwent PVI using various techniques: conventional PVI (CPVI) using mapping with irrigated point-per-point RF ablation (n = 576), multi-electrode RF ablation with the pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) (n = 272) or high density mesh ablator (HDMA) (n = 59) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation (n = 93). A complication was defined as any procedure-related adverse event resulting in permanent injury or death, requiring intervention or treatment, or prolonging/requiring hospitalization for >48 h. A total of 105 (10.5%) complications occurred in 101 (10.1%) patients. No periprocedural death occurred. Most frequent complications were vascular complications (4%) and pericarditis (3.1%). Seven patients experienced permanent deficit due to PV stenosis (n = 3, 1 CPVI, 2 PVAC) (n = 3) and phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) (n = 4, 3 CPVI, 1 PVAC). Independent predictors of complications were female sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.79; P = 0.023], CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.01-1.52; P = 0.039), and ablation technique (P = 0.006) in multivariable-adjusted analysis. Among the different techniques, CB (P = 0.047) and PVAC ablation (P = 0.003) had lowest overall complication rates. Complication profile (type/severity) differed between techniques (association between CB and PNP, CPVI and pericardial injury, PVAC and transient ischaemic attack/PV stenosis). Conclusion: Overall complication rate of PVI with various techniques is 10.5%. Permanent deficit occurred only after PVAC and CPVI in 0.7% of patients. Female sex and a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score increase, while PVAC and CB-PVI decrease, overall risk. Differences in overall safety and individual complication profile make selection of the ablation technique in relation to clinical risk profile possible.
Authors: Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Yenn-Jiang Lin; Marcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Alberto Alfie; Serge Boveda; Nikolaos Dagres; Dario Di Toro; Lee L Eckhardt; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Carina Hardy; Takanori Ikeda; Aparna Jaswal; Elizabeth Kaufman; Andrew Krahn; Kengo Kusano; Valentina Kutyifa; Han S Lim; Gregory Y H Lip; Santiago Nava-Townsend; Hui-Nam Pak; Gerardo Rodríguez Diez; William Sauer; Anil Saxena; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Diego Vanegas; Marmar Vaseghi; Arthur Wilde; T Jared Bunch; Alfred E Buxton; Gonzalo Calvimontes; Tze-Fan Chao; Lars Eckardt; Heidi Estner; Anne M Gillis; Rodrigo Isa; Josef Kautzner; Philippe Maury; Joshua D Moss; Gi-Byung Nam; Brian Olshansky; Luis Fernando Pava Molano; Mauricio Pimentel; Mukund Prabhu; Wendy S Tzou; Philipp Sommer; Janice Swampillai; Alejandro Vidal; Thomas Deneke; Gerhard Hindricks; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Annabelle Santos Volgman; Emelia J Benjamin; Anne B Curtis; Margaret C Fang; Kathryn J Lindley; Gerald V Naccarelli; Carl J Pepine; Odayme Quesada; Marmar Vaseghi; Albert L Waldo; Nanette K Wenger; Andrea M Russo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ivan Zeljkovic; Sven Knecht; Nikola Pavlovic; Umut Celikyrut; Florian Spies; Sarah Burri; Dominik Mannhart; Loris Peterhans; Tobias Reichlin; Beat Schaer; Stefan Osswald; Christian Sticherling; Michael Kuhne Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-04-20
Authors: Kevin Willy; Kristina Wasmer; Dirk G Dechering; Julia Köbe; Philipp S Lange; Nils Bögeholz; Christian Ellermann; Florian Reinke; Gerrit Frommeyer; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: M N Klaver; L I S Wintgens; M C E F Wijffels; J C Balt; V F van Dijk; A Alipour; S M Chaldoupi; R Derksen; L V A Boersma Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Nándor Szegedi; Gábor Széplaki; Szilvia Herczeg; Tamás Tahin; Zoltán Salló; Vivien Klaudia Nagy; István Osztheimer; Emin Evren Özcan; Béla Merkely; László Gellér Journal: Europace Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214