Dataset Information

Strategies for repeat ablation for atrial fibrillation: A multicentre comparison of nonpulmonary vein versus pulmonary vein target ablation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Approximately 18% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergo a repeat ablation within 12 months after their index ablation. Despite the high prevalence, comparative studies on nonpulmonary vein (PV) target strategies in repeat AF ablation are scarce. Here, we describe 12 months efficacy of non-PV and PV target ablations as a repeat ablation strategy.

Methods

A multicentre retrospective, descriptive study was conducted with data of 280 patients who underwent repeat AF ablation. The ablation strategy for repeat ablation was at the operators' discretion. Non-PV target ablation (n = 140) included PV reisolation, posterior wall isolation, mitral line, roofline, and/or complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation. PV target ablation (n = 140), included reisolation and/or wide atrium circumferential ablation. Patients' demographics and rhythm outcomes during 12 months follow-up were analyzed.

Results

At 12 months, more atrial tachyarrhythmias were observed in the non-PV target group (48.6%) compared to the PV target group (29.3%, p = .001). Similarly, a significantly higher AF and atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence rate was observed after non-PV target ablation compared to PV target ablation (36.4% vs. 22.1% and 22.9% vs. 10.7%). After adjustment, a significantly higher risk of AT recurrence remained in the non-PV target group. Both groups significantly de-escalated antiarrhythmic drug use; de-escalation was more profound after PV target ablation. Patients with isolated PVs during non-PV target ablation had a significantly higher risk for AF recurrence than those with reconnected PVs.

Conclusion

Compared to PV target ablation, non-PV target repeat ablation did not improve outcomes after 12 months and was independently associated with an increased risk for AT recurrences.

SUBMITTER: Mol D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9315029 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe current challenge in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment is to develop effective, efficient, and safe ablation strategies. This randomized controlled trial assesses the medium-term efficacy of duty-cycled radiofrequency ablation via the circular pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) vs. conventional electro-anatomically guided wide-area circumferential ablation (WACA).Methods and resultsOne hundred and eighty-eight patients (mean age 62 ± 12 years, 116 M : 72 F) with paroxysmal AF were prospectively randomized to PVAC or WACA strategies and sequentially followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was freedom from symptomatic or documented >30 s AF off medications for 7 days at 12 months post-procedure. One hundred and eighty-three patients completed 12 m follow-up. Ninety-four patients underwent PVAC PV isolation with 372 of 376 pulmonary veins (PVs) successfully isolated and all PVs isolated in 92 WACA patients. Three WACA and no PVAC patients developed tamponade. Fifty-six percent of WACA and 60% of PVAC patients were free of AF at 12 months post-procedure (P = ns) with a significant attrition rate from 77 to 78%, respectively, at 6 months. The mean procedure (140 ± 43 vs. 167 ± 42 min, P<0.0001), fluoroscopy (35 ± 16 vs. 42 ± 20 min, P<0.05) times were significantly shorter for PVAC than for WACA. Two patients developed strokes within 72 h of the procedure in the PVAC group, one possibly related directly to PVAC ablation in a high-risk patient and none in the WACA group (P = ns). Two of the 47 patients in the PVAC group who underwent repeat ablation had sub-clinical mild PV stenoses of 25-50% and 1 WACA patient developed delayed severe PV stenosis requiring venoplasty.ConclusionThe pulmonary vein ablation catheter is equivalent in efficacy to WACA with reduced procedural and fluoroscopy times. However, there is a risk of thrombo-embolic and pulmonary stenosis complications which needs to be addressed and prospectively monitored.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT00678340.