INTRODUCTION: Dormant conduction and acute reconnection in the pulmonary veins (PV) during a PV isolation can be detected by performing an adenosine provocation test (APT). Visually guided laser balloon ablation (VGLB) creates deep transmural lesions, thus causing less acute reconnection. This study compared the acute PV reconnection rate after isolation with VGLB or with RF using an APT. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to PVI with the VGLB or RF ablation. Each PV underwent an APT at least 20 minutes after successful isolation with injection of 18 mg adenosine. Primary endpoint was the difference between the two ablation methods regarding acute PV reconnection rate detected with APT. A total of 50 patients were randomized into the study (25 VGLB). The basic characteristics and mean procedure time were not different between the two groups. Note that 96% of the 97 targeted PVs in the VGLB group and 98% of the 96 targeted PVs in the RF group could be isolated (P = 0.41). APT was performed at similar times (after 28 minutes in VGLB-arm vs. after 31.5 minutes in RF-arm; P = 0.12). Significantly less PVs were reconnected during APT in the VGLB group than in the RF group (10 PV [10.8%] vs. 29 PV [30.9%]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The acute PV reconnection rate is significantly less after PVI with VGBL than with RF. The clinical significance of this apparently better procedural efficiency of the VGBL ablation should be assessed with new randomized studies looking at AF recurrence.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Dormant conduction and acute reconnection in the pulmonary veins (PV) during a PV isolation can be detected by performing an adenosine provocation test (APT). Visually guided laser balloon ablation (VGLB) creates deep transmural lesions, thus causing less acute reconnection. This study compared the acute PV reconnection rate after isolation with VGLB or with RF using an APT. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to PVI with the VGLB or RF ablation. Each PV underwent an APT at least 20 minutes after successful isolation with injection of 18 mg adenosine. Primary endpoint was the difference between the two ablation methods regarding acute PV reconnection rate detected with APT. A total of 50 patients were randomized into the study (25 VGLB). The basic characteristics and mean procedure time were not different between the two groups. Note that 96% of the 97 targeted PVs in the VGLB group and 98% of the 96 targeted PVs in the RF group could be isolated (P = 0.41). APT was performed at similar times (after 28 minutes in VGLB-arm vs. after 31.5 minutes in RF-arm; P = 0.12). Significantly less PVs were reconnected during APT in the VGLB group than in the RF group (10 PV [10.8%] vs. 29 PV [30.9%]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The acute PV reconnection rate is significantly less after PVI with VGBL than with RF. The clinical significance of this apparently better procedural efficiency of the VGBL ablation should be assessed with new randomized studies looking at AF recurrence.