Boris Schmidt1, Josep Brugada2, Elena Arbelo3,4,5, Cécile Laroche6, Sevda Bayramova7, Matteo Bertini8, Konstantinos P Letsas9, Laurent Pison10, Alexander Romanov7, Daniel Scherr11, Roland Richard Tilz12,13, Aldo Maggioni6,14, Pedro Adragao15, Juha Lund16, Ludek Haman17, Marino Martins Oliveira18, Nikolaos Dagres19. 1. Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Wilhelm-Epstein Str. 4, 60431 Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Pediatric Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínic, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. 4. Institut d'Investigació August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 5. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Madrid, Spain. 6. EURObservational Research Programme, EORP, European Society of Cardiology, Sophia-Antipolis, France. 7. E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Rechkunovskaya, Novosibirsk, Russia. 8. Arcispedale Sant'Anna, Ferrara, Italy. 9. Evangelismos General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 10. Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Schiepse Bos 6, 3600 Genk, Belgium. 11. Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 12. Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Heart Center Luebeck, Medical Clinic II, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Luebeck, Germany. 13. Department II. Med. Kardiologie, Asklepios Hospital St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany. 14. ANMCO Research Center, Florence, Italy. 15. Hospital de Santa Cruz, Lisbon, Portugal. 16. Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 17. University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. 18. Prof. Mario Martins Oliveira, Hospital de Santa Marta, Lisbon, Portugal. 19. Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: The ESC EORP EHRA Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Ablation Long-Term registry was designed to assess management and outcomes of AF catheter ablation procedures in Europe. To investigate the current ablation approaches and their outcomes for patients with paroxymal AF (PAF) and non-PAF in Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from index ablations were collected in 27 European countries at 104 centres in a prospective fashion. Pre-procedural, procedural, and 1-year follow-up data were captured on a web-based electronic case record form. Data on the ablation procedure were available for 3446 patients. Of these, 2513 patients and 933 patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) or PVI plus (PVIplus) additional ablation, respectively. The ablation strategy was limited to PVI in 81% and 56% of patients in the PAF and non-PAF group, respectively (P < 0.001). In the non-PAF group, left atrial linear ablation and ablation of complex fragmented atrial electrograms were more commonly performed. Arrhythmias recurrence after PVI was 29% and 39% in the PAF and non-PAF group, respectively (P < 0.001) and 42% after PVIplus in both groups. Atrial fibrillation related hospital admissions were more common in the PVIplus group (20% vs. 14%). A very low procedural complication rate was observed. No relevant differences were observed with regard to repeat ablation (PVI 9% and PVIplus 11%). CONCLUSION: In patients with PAF and non-PAF, the ablation strategies of PVI and PVIplus led to similar arrhythmia-free survival rates after 1 year. A considerable hospital readmission rate was noted. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The ESC EORP EHRA Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Ablation Long-Term registry was designed to assess management and outcomes of AF catheter ablation procedures in Europe. To investigate the current ablation approaches and their outcomes for patients with paroxymal AF (PAF) and non-PAF in Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from index ablations were collected in 27 European countries at 104 centres in a prospective fashion. Pre-procedural, procedural, and 1-year follow-up data were captured on a web-based electronic case record form. Data on the ablation procedure were available for 3446 patients. Of these, 2513 patients and 933 patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) or PVI plus (PVIplus) additional ablation, respectively. The ablation strategy was limited to PVI in 81% and 56% of patients in the PAF and non-PAF group, respectively (P < 0.001). In the non-PAF group, left atrial linear ablation and ablation of complex fragmented atrial electrograms were more commonly performed. Arrhythmias recurrence after PVI was 29% and 39% in the PAF and non-PAF group, respectively (P < 0.001) and 42% after PVIplus in both groups. Atrial fibrillation related hospital admissions were more common in the PVIplus group (20% vs. 14%). A very low procedural complication rate was observed. No relevant differences were observed with regard to repeat ablation (PVI 9% and PVIplus 11%). CONCLUSION: In patients with PAF and non-PAF, the ablation strategies of PVI and PVIplus led to similar arrhythmia-free survival rates after 1 year. A considerable hospital readmission rate was noted. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ling Kuo; David S Frankel; Aung Lin; Jeffrey Arkles; Matthew Hyman; Pasquale Santangeli; Francis E Marchlinski; Saman Nazarian Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-12-10