BACKGROUND: Improved catheter stability is associated with decreased arrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Recently, atrial voltage mapping in AF was demonstrated to correlate better with scar as compared to mapping in sinus rhythm (SR). However, it is unknown whether ablation of persistent AF in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing or in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing results in differences in catheter stability or arrhythmia recurrence. METHODS: We analyzed 53 consecutive patients undergoing first-time persistent AF ablation with pulmonary vein and posterior wall isolation: 27 were cardioverted, mapped, and ablated in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing, and 26 were mapped and ablated in AF with ventricular pacing. Ablation data was extracted from the mapping system and analyzed using custom MATLAB software to determine high-frequency (60Hz) catheter excursion as a novel metric for catheter spatial stability. RESULTS: There was no difference in catheter stability as assessed by maximal catheter excursion, mean catheter excursion, or contact force variability between the atrial-paced and ventricular-paced patients. Ventricular-paced patients had significantly greater mean contact force as compared to atrial-paced patients. Contact-force variability demonstrated poor correlation with catheter excursion. One year arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the atrial paced and ventricular paced patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with persistent AF, ablation in AF with ventricular pacing results in similar catheter stability and arrhythmia recurrence as compared to cardioversion and ablation in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing. Given the improved fidelity of mapping in AF, mapping and ablating during AF with ventricular pacing may be preferred.
BACKGROUND: Improved catheter stability is associated with decreased arrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Recently, atrial voltage mapping in AF was demonstrated to correlate better with scar as compared to mapping in sinus rhythm (SR). However, it is unknown whether ablation of persistent AF in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing or in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing results in differences in catheter stability or arrhythmia recurrence. METHODS: We analyzed 53 consecutive patients undergoing first-time persistent AF ablation with pulmonary vein and posterior wall isolation: 27 were cardioverted, mapped, and ablated in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing, and 26 were mapped and ablated in AF with ventricular pacing. Ablation data was extracted from the mapping system and analyzed using custom MATLAB software to determine high-frequency (60Hz) catheter excursion as a novel metric for catheter spatial stability. RESULTS: There was no difference in catheter stability as assessed by maximal catheter excursion, mean catheter excursion, or contact force variability between the atrial-paced and ventricular-paced patients. Ventricular-paced patients had significantly greater mean contact force as compared to atrial-paced patients. Contact-force variability demonstrated poor correlation with catheter excursion. One year arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the atrial paced and ventricular paced patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with persistent AF, ablation in AF with ventricular pacing results in similar catheter stability and arrhythmia recurrence as compared to cardioversion and ablation in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing. Given the improved fidelity of mapping in AF, mapping and ablating during AF with ventricular pacing may be preferred.
Authors: Roger A Winkle; Julian W E Jarman; R Hardwin Mead; Gregory Engel; Melissa H Kong; William Fleming; Rob A Patrawala Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2016-07-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Joseph S Goode; Renee L Taylor; Charles W Buffington; Miroslav M Klain; David Schwartzman Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Bhradeev Sivasambu; Joe B Hakim; Viachaslau Barodka; Jonathan Chrispin; Ronald D Berger; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Luisa Ciuffo; Susumu Tao; Hugh Calkins; Joseph E Marine; Natalia Trayanova; David D Spragg Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-11-01
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Hugh Calkins; Lin Y Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Karen L Furie; Paul A Heidenreich; Katherine T Murray; Julie B Shea; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anthony Aizer; Austin V Cheng; Patrick B Wu; Jessica K Qiu; Chirag R Barbhaiya; Steven J Fowler; Scott A Bernstein; David S Park; Douglas S Holmes; Larry A Chinitz Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Anthony G Brooks; Martin K Stiles; Julien Laborderie; Dennis H Lau; Pawel Kuklik; Nicholas J Shipp; Li-Fern Hsu; Prashanthan Sanders Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Christopher Piorkowski; Charlotte Eitel; Sascha Rolf; Kerstin Bode; Philipp Sommer; Thomas Gaspar; Simon Kircher; Ulrike Wetzel; Abdul Shokor Parwani; Leif-Hendrik Boldt; Meinhard Mende; Andreas Bollmann; Daniela Husser; Nikolaos Dagres; Masahiro Esato; Arash Arya; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-01-19
Authors: Lior Jankelson; Matthew Dai; Scott Bernstein; David Park; Douglas Holmes; Anthony Aizer; Larry Chinitz; Chirag Barbhaiya Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 4.749