PURPOSE: Early recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ERAT) cause various symptoms and predict worse outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). This study aimed to clarify whether ablation index (AI)-guided PVI, which is a novel technology of radiofrequency ablation, could reduce ERAT as compared to conventional contact force (CF)-guided PVI. METHODS: Consecutive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who underwent initial PVI from September 2014 to August 2019 were enrolled. We divided the patients into two groups: patients who underwent AI-guided PVI (AI group) and those who underwent CF-guided PVI (CF group). Using propensity score matching (PSM), we adjusted for the patient backgrounds. We compared the incidence of ERAT and late reconnection rate of isolated pulmonary veins (PVs) during second session between the two groups. ERAT was defined as any atrial tachyarrhythmias ≥ 30 s during a 90-day blanking period. RESULTS: A total of 697 AF patients (paroxysmal 51%) were enrolled. After the PSM, both groups included 229 patients. The incidence of ERAT was significantly lower in the AI group than that in the CF group (21.5% vs. 36.1%, P < 0.001). Total 118 patients (25.7%) experienced late recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (LRAT) after blanking period. LRAT free survival rate was significantly higher in patients without ERAT than those with ERAT (88.1% vs. 42.0%, P < 0.001). The rate of PV reconnection was lower in the AI group than that in the CF group (45.8% vs. 71.4%, P = 0.028). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that AI-guided PVI was independently correlated with ERAT (OR = 0.415, 95%CI = 0.269-0.639, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AI-guided PVI can reduce ERAT as compared to conventional CF-guided PVI.
PURPOSE: Early recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ERAT) cause various symptoms and predict worse outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). This study aimed to clarify whether ablation index (AI)-guided PVI, which is a novel technology of radiofrequency ablation, could reduce ERAT as compared to conventional contact force (CF)-guided PVI. METHODS: Consecutive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who underwent initial PVI from September 2014 to August 2019 were enrolled. We divided the patients into two groups: patients who underwent AI-guided PVI (AI group) and those who underwent CF-guided PVI (CF group). Using propensity score matching (PSM), we adjusted for the patient backgrounds. We compared the incidence of ERAT and late reconnection rate of isolated pulmonary veins (PVs) during second session between the two groups. ERAT was defined as any atrial tachyarrhythmias ≥ 30 s during a 90-day blanking period. RESULTS: A total of 697 AF patients (paroxysmal 51%) were enrolled. After the PSM, both groups included 229 patients. The incidence of ERAT was significantly lower in the AI group than that in the CF group (21.5% vs. 36.1%, P < 0.001). Total 118 patients (25.7%) experienced late recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (LRAT) after blanking period. LRAT free survival rate was significantly higher in patients without ERAT than those with ERAT (88.1% vs. 42.0%, P < 0.001). The rate of PV reconnection was lower in the AI group than that in the CF group (45.8% vs. 71.4%, P = 0.028). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that AI-guided PVI was independently correlated with ERAT (OR = 0.415, 95%CI = 0.269-0.639, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AI-guided PVI can reduce ERAT as compared to conventional CF-guided PVI.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castella; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jason G Andrade; Paul Khairy; Atul Verma; Peter G Guerra; Marc Dubuc; Lena Rivard; Marc W Deyell; Blandine Mondesert; Bernard Thibault; Mario Talajic; Denis Roy; Laurent Macle Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Waqas Ullah; Ross J Hunter; Malcolm C Finlay; Ailsa McLean; Mehul B Dhinoja; Simon Sporton; Mark J Earley; Richard J Schilling Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2017-06-28
Authors: Moloy Das; Gareth J Wynn; Maureen Morgan; Ben Lodge; Johan E P Waktare; Derick M Todd; Mark C S Hall; Richard L Snowdon; Simon Modi; Dhiraj Gupta Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2015-06-24
Authors: Moloy Das; Jonathan J Loveday; Gareth J Wynn; Sean Gomes; Yawer Saeed; Laura J Bonnett; Johan E P Waktare; Derick M Todd; Mark C S Hall; Richard L Snowdon; Simon Modi; Dhiraj Gupta Journal: Europace Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214