Search

Abstract Aim To explore the safety and efficacy of a novel strategy (bi-atrial linear catheter ablation guided by electrophysiological mapping) for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) treatment. Methods 83 patients with PeAF were enrolled for evaluation of ablation strategy. 43 patients were subjected to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) strategy (PVI group). 40 patients were subjected to bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping (PVI, left atrial BOX ablation, coronary sinus endocardial linear ablation, tailored left atrial anterior wall linear ablation, mitral isthmus linear ablation with necessary ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall, right atrial posterior wall linear ablation and cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation) (linear ablation group). Patients were followed up every 3 months. Results During a median follow-up of 12 (4–16) months, freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia recurrence was 87.5% in the linear ablation group and 65.1% in the PVI group (P

Background An optimal strategy for left atrial ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been determined. Methods and Results We conducted an extended follow‐up of the multicenter randomized controlled EARNEST‐PVI (Efficacy of Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which compared 12‐month rhythm outcomes in patients with persistent AF between patients randomized to a PVI‐alone strategy (n=248) or PVI‐plus strategy (n=248; PVI followed by left atrial additional ablation, including linear ablation or ablation targeting areas with complex fractionated electrograms). The present study extended the follow‐up period to 3 years after enrollment. Outcomes were compared not only between randomly allocated groups but also between on‐treatment groups categorized by actually created ablation lesions. Recurrence rate of AF or atrial tachycardia (AT) was lower in the randomly allocated to PVI‐plus group than the PVI‐alone group (29.0% versus 37.5%, P=0.036). On‐treatment analysis revealed that patients with PVI+linear ablation (n=205) demonstrated a lower AF/AT recurrence rate than those with PVI only (26.3% versus 37.8%, P=0.007). In contrast, patients with PVI+complex fractionated electrograms ablation (n=37) had an AF/AT recurrence rate comparable to that of patients with PVI only (40.5% versus 37.8%, P=0.76). At second ablation in 126 patients with AF/AT recurrence, ATs excluding common atrial flutter were more frequent in patients with PVI+linear ablation than in those with PVI only (32.6% versus 5.7%, P

Abstract Background The efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is not guaranteed for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and it is unclear which type of ablation approach should be applied in addition to PVI. This study aimed to compare outcomes and prognosis between empirical linear ablation and low-voltage area (LVA) ablation after PVI for PeAF. Methods We enrolled 128 patients with PeAF who were assigned to the linear ablation group (n = 64) and the LVA ablation group (n = 64) using a propensity score-matched model. After PVI and cardioversion, the patients underwent either empirical linear ablation or LVA ablation during sinus rhythm. All patients in the linear ablation group underwent both roof line and mitral valve isthmus (MVI) ablations. An electrical-guided ablation targeting LVA (

Recurrent atrial tachycardia (AT) is a common phenomenon after catheter ablation for AF, particularly in the setting of additional substrate ablation, with many studies demonstrating gap-related macro re-entrant AT (predominantly mitral and roof dependent) to be the dominant mechanism. Although multiple inducible ATs after ablation of the clinical AT are commonly described at repeat procedures, the optimal ablation strategy, and procedural endpoints are unclear in this setting. A recent randomized study addressing the question of non-inducibility as a procedural endpoint demonstrated no additional benefits to the ablation of all induced, non-clinical ATs, but it was limited by small numbers and high rates of non-inducibility. Nevertheless, once ablation of the clinical AT has been successfully performed, ensuring durable linear block and PV isolation may be sufficient for the prevention of further AT. Durable linear block, particularly at the mitral isthmus, is difficult to achieve but may be facilitated by the real-time evaluation of lesion quality and contiguity and the novel technique of vein of Marshall ethanol infusion. Large-scale, randomized trials are needed, nonetheless, to fully assess the optimal ablation strategy in the setting of recurrent AT post-AF ablation.

BackgroundAlthough circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) catheter ablation may not be sufficient for long‐standing persistent atrial fibrillation (L‐PeAF), it is not clear which ablation strategy is beneficial in addition to CPVI. We sought to investigate whether additional complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE)‐guided ablation improves clinical outcomes in L‐PeAF patients who exhibit continuous atrial fibrillation (AF) after CPVI and linear ablation (Line). Methods and ResultsThis study enrolled 137 L‐PeAF patients (71.4% male, 61.6±10.9 years old) who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation. We conducted CPVI+Line based on the Dallas lesion set (posterior box+anterior line) after baseline CFAE mapping in all patients. If AF was defragmented (terminated or changed to atrial tachycardia), the procedure was stopped (AF‐Defrag group, n=29). If AF was maintained after CPVI+Line, we mapped the CFAE again and randomly assigned the patient to the CPVI+Line group (n=54) or the additional CFAE ablation group (CPVI+Line+CFAE group, n=54). L‐PeAF was defragmented during CPVI+Line in 21.2% of patients (29/137, AF‐Defrag group). The mean CFAE cycle length was prolonged (P

BackgroundIt is not clear whether bidirectional block (BDB) of linear ablations reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation. We hypothesized that BDB of linear ablation has prognostic significance after radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent AF. Methods and ResultsAmong 1793 consecutive patients in the Yonsei AF ablation cohort, this observational cohort study included 398 patients with persistent AF (75.6% male; age, 59.8±10.3 years) who underwent catheter ablation with a consistent ablation protocol of the Dallas lesion set: circumferential pulmonary vein isolation; cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (CTI); roof line (RL); posterior‐inferior line (PIL); and anterior line (AL). BDB rates of de novo ablation lines were 100% in circumferential pulmonary vein isolation, 100% in CTI, 84.7% in RL, 44.7% in PIL, and 63.6% in AL. During 29.0±18.4 months of follow‐up, 31.7% (126/398) of the patients showed clinical recurrence. Left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) isolation (BDBs of RL and PIL) was independently associated with lower clinical AF/atrial tachycardia recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.98; P=0.041; log‐rank, P=0.017), whereas BDBs of RL or AL were not (log‐rank, P=0.178 for RL; P=0.764 for AL). Among 52 patients who underwent repeat procedures (23.0±16.1 months after de novo procedure), the BDB maintenance rates for CTI, RL, PIL, and AL were 94.2% (49 of 52), 63.5% (33 of 47), 62.1% (18 of 29), and 61.8% (21 of 34), respectively. ConclusionsAlthough PIL crosses the esophageal contact area, LAPW isolation is important for better clinical outcome in catheter ablation with a linear ablation strategy for patients with persistent AF.

Non-pharmacological rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) is becoming increasingly important in our aging society. Advancement of catheter ablation techniques in the last decade has provided a cure for AF patients, with a nearly established efficiency for paroxysmal cases. However, since ablation of persistent/chronic AF cases is still challenging, early treatment of paroxysmal AF before transformation to the persistent/chronic form is mandatory. Although there is a consensus that pulmonary vein isolation is the first-line approach for ablation of long-standing persistent AF, similar to that for paroxysmal AF, there are still wide variations in the adjunctive approach to modify the atrial substrate of persistent AF (anatomical linear ablation, electrogram-based complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, ganglionated plexus ablation, etc.). Since data comparing the effectiveness of these adjunctive approaches are still lacking, large-scale controlled trials evaluating the effect of catheter ablation in diverse patient populations on a long-term basis are needed to establish the appropriate approach for long-standing persistent AF. Furthermore, the development of de novo ablation methods (new energies, new targets, etc.) is expected to improve ablation outcome in patients with long-standing persistent AF.

Introduction: We describe the use of a ablating system to compartmentalise and regionally isolate the atria in paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: 40 patients were studied, 25 paroxysmal AF and 14 persistent AF. One patient enrolled was later found to be in left atrial flutter and was excluded. The Cardima Revelation® TX catheter system with Intellitemp® Radiofrequency (RF) energy control device and a Medtronic Atakar® RF generator were used to place wide area circumferential ablations to achieve conduction block into the left and right sided pulmonary veins. Roof lines and mitral isthmus lines were also performed. In patients with persistent AF and in repeat procedures, right atrial compartmentalisation was performed with an anterior superior vena cava (SVC) to inferior vena cava (IVC) line and a septal SVC to IVC line. Results: At 6 months, 18 of the 39 patients were asymptomatic, 10 had improved symptoms and 22 were in sinus rhythm. In the paroxysmal group, 11 were asymptomatic, 7 had improved symptoms and 16 (64%) were in sinus rhythm. In the persistent group, 7 were asymptomatic, 3 had improved symptoms and 6 (43%) were in sinus rhythm. The total group AF burden was 37.8±5.4 hrs pre-procedure and 23.1±5.1 hrs at 6 months post procedure. Mean temperature, impedance and power recorded at each pole demonstrated effective power delivery at all poles. No catheter charring was observed, complication rates were comparable to standard AF ablation technique. Conclusion: Linear ablation in the left and right atria to mimic Cox’s Maze is feasible and safe using this ablating system.