Rajesh Malik1, Bobby Malik2, Tina D Hunter3. 1. Electrophysiology Department, McLeod Cardiology Associates, McLeod Heart and Vascular Institute, 101 Johns Street, Suite 600, Florence, SC, 29505, USA. rmalik@mcleodhealth.org. 2. Osteopathic Medicine, VCOM-Carolinas, Spartanburg, SC, USA. 3. Real World Evidence, CTI Clinical Trial and Consulting Services, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The procedural endpoint following cryoballoon ablation (CA) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), which is typically confirmed by entrance/exit block using a circular mapping catheter. The present study added an assessment of ablation gaps with high-density voltage mapping after standard confirmation of PVI. Relationships between the need for touch-up ablation, patient characteristics, and atrial arrhythmia recurrence were explored. METHODS: PAF patients received CA through standard of care treatment, with PVI assessed by bidirectional block confirmation, followed by voltage mapping. Radiofrequency ablation was performed as needed for voltage breakthrough and or additional rhythms. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence through 12-month follow-up was analyzed retrospectively with statistical survival models. RESULTS: A total of 77 PAF patients (age 66.1 ± 11.6, CHADS2 1.8 ± 1.0) were followed for 1.2 ± 0.3 years after CA. During the index procedure, pulmonary vein (PV) touch-up was required in 59 patients (76.6%) and ablation of additional atrial fibrillation targets beyond PV was required in 26 patients (33.8%). Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence at 1 year were 62 ± 6%. Rates were lower for patients requiring touch-up ablation (58 ± 6% vs. 78 ± 10%) or with CHADS2 scores > 2 (33 ± 12% vs. 69 ± 6%). Cox regression models showed that the need for touch-up ablation increased recurrence (p = .045, HR = 2.6) after adjusting for hypertension and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The high rate of PV touch-up suggests that initial CA lesions may be less durable than previously assumed, while the higher recurrence rate in patients requiring touch-up may indicate that additional factors make these patients more difficult to treat.
PURPOSE: The procedural endpoint following cryoballoon ablation (CA) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), which is typically confirmed by entrance/exit block using a circular mapping catheter. The present study added an assessment of ablation gaps with high-density voltage mapping after standard confirmation of PVI. Relationships between the need for touch-up ablation, patient characteristics, and atrial arrhythmia recurrence were explored. METHODS: PAF patients received CA through standard of care treatment, with PVI assessed by bidirectional block confirmation, followed by voltage mapping. Radiofrequency ablation was performed as needed for voltage breakthrough and or additional rhythms. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence through 12-month follow-up was analyzed retrospectively with statistical survival models. RESULTS: A total of 77 PAF patients (age 66.1 ± 11.6, CHADS2 1.8 ± 1.0) were followed for 1.2 ± 0.3 years after CA. During the index procedure, pulmonary vein (PV) touch-up was required in 59 patients (76.6%) and ablation of additional atrial fibrillation targets beyond PV was required in 26 patients (33.8%). Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence at 1 year were 62 ± 6%. Rates were lower for patients requiring touch-up ablation (58 ± 6% vs. 78 ± 10%) or with CHADS2 scores > 2 (33 ± 12% vs. 69 ± 6%). Cox regression models showed that the need for touch-up ablation increased recurrence (p = .045, HR = 2.6) after adjusting for hypertension and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The high rate of PV touch-up suggests that initial CA lesions may be less durable than previously assumed, while the higher recurrence rate in patients requiring touch-up may indicate that additional factors make these patients more difficult to treat.
Authors: F Fioravanti; D Brisinda; A R Sorbo; G Lombardi; L La Brocca; R Fenici Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Michael Kühne; Yves Suter; David Altmann; Peter Ammann; Beat Schaer; Stefan Osswald; Christian Sticherling Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: T Jared Bunch; Heidi T May; Tami L Bair; Brian G Crandall; Michael J Cutler; Victoria Jacobs; Charles Mallender; Joseph B Muhlestein; Jeffrey S Osborn; J Peter Weiss; John D Day Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Petr Neuzil; Andre d'Avila; Margaret Laragy; Zachary J Malchano; Stepan Kralovec; Steven J Kim; Jeremy N Ruskin Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Alessandra Buiatti; Gesa von Olshausen; Petra Barthel; Simon Schneider; Armin Luik; Bernhard Kaess; Karl-Ludwig Laugwitz; Petra Hoppmann Journal: Europace Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: A Sultan; J Lüker; D Andresen; K H Kuck; E Hoffmann; J Brachmann; M Hochadel; S Willems; L Eckardt; T Lewalter; J Senges; D Steven Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 4.379