Dataset Information

Optimum lesion set and predictors of outcome in persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: a meta-regression analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed by many techniques with varying success rates. This may be due to ablation techniques, patient demographics, comorbidities, and trial design. We conducted a meta-regression of studies of PsAF ablation to elucidate the factors affecting atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence.

Methods and results

Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. A meta-regression was performed. Fifty-eight studies (6767 patients) were included. Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation reduced freedom from AF by 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -15 to -2.3, P = 0.009). Left atrial appendage [LAA isolation (three study arms)] increased freedom from AF by 39.5% (95% CI 9.1-78.4, P = 0.008). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) (eight study arms) increased freedom from AF by 19.4% (95% CI 3.3-38.1, P = 0.017). Linear ablation or ganglionated plexi ablation resulted in no significant effect on freedom from AF. More extensive ablation increased intraprocedural AF termination; however, intraprocedural AF termination was not associated with improved outcomes. Increased left atrial diameter was associated with a reduction in freedom from AF by 4% (95% CI -6.8% to -1.1%, P = 0.007) for every 1 mm increase in diameter.

Conclusion

Linear ablation, PWI, and CFAE ablation improves intraprocedural AF termination, but such termination does not predict better long-term outcomes. Study arms including PWI or LAA isolation in the lesion set were associated with improved outcomes in terms of freedom from AF; however, further randomized trials are required before these can be routinely recommended. Left atrial size is the most important marker of AF chronicity influencing outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Sau A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6680367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMultiple groups have reported on the usefulness of ablating in atrial regions exhibiting abnormal electrograms during atrial fibrillation (AF). Still, previous studies have suggested that ablation outcomes are highly operator- and center-dependent. This study sought to evaluate a novel machine learning software algorithm named VX1 (Volta Medical), trained to adjudicate multipolar electrogram dispersion.MethodsThis study was a prospective, multicentric, nonrandomized study conducted to assess the feasibility of generating VX1 dispersion maps. In 85 patients, 8 centers, and 17 operators, we compared the acute and long-term outcomes after ablation in regions exhibiting dispersion between primary and satellite centers. We also compared outcomes to a control group in which dispersion-guided ablation was performed visually by trained operators.ResultsThe study population included 29% of long-standing persistent AF. AF termination occurred in 92% and 83% of the patients in primary and satellite centers, respectively, p = 0.31. The average rate of freedom from documented AF, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), was 86% after a single procedure, and 89% after an average of 1.3 procedures per patient (p = 0.4). The rate of freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia, with or without AADs, was 54% and 73% after a single or an average of 1.3 procedures per patient, respectively (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences between outcomes of the primary versus satellite centers were observed for one (p = 0.8) or multiple procedures (p = 0.4), or between outcomes of the entire study population versus the control group (p > 0.2). Interestingly, intraprocedural AF termination and type of recurrent arrhythmia (i.e., AF vs. AT) appear to be predictors of the subsequent clinical course.ConclusionVX1, an expertise-based artificial intelligence software solution, allowed for robust center-to-center standardization of acute and long-term ablation outcomes after electrogram-based ablation.