Shortened radiofrequency delivery time to optimize efficiency and safety of pulmonary vein isolation with the radiofrequency balloon: insights from the COLLABORATE registry.

Aims: Previous clinical studies on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with a radiofrequency balloon (RFB) reported safe and effective procedures using conventional ablation settings with 20/60 s RF delivery via posterior/anterior (PST/ANT) electrodes. The latest evidence suggests that reducing the application time to 15 s (s) on the posterior wall when facing the oesophageal region is as effective as applying 20 s. To prospectively assess whether reducing RF time on PST/ANT segments to 15/45 s can ensure sufficient quality of lesion metrics and compare the new shortened ablation settings with the conventional one in terms of safety, and effectiveness at 1-year.
Methods and Results: A total of 641 patients from seven European centres were enrolled in a collaborative registry, with 374 in the conventional RF delivery group and 267 in the shortened RF delivery group. Procedural outcomes, lesion metrics, and safety profiles were assessed and compared between the groups. Freedom of any atrial tachycarrythmias at one year was 85.4% and 88.2% in the SHRT and CONV groups, respectively. The shortened RF delivery strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedure times (median 63.5 vs. 96.5 min, P < 0.001) and shortened fluoroscopy exposure (median 10.0 vs. 14.0 min, P < 0.001) compared to conventional delivery. Efficacy metrics, including first-pass isolation rates and time to isolation, were comparable between groups. Shortened RF delivery was associated with a lower incidence of procedural complications (1.4% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.04) and optimized thermal characteristics.
Conclusion: Analyses from the COLLABORATE registry demonstrate that shortening RF energy delivery times to 15/45 s (PST/ANT) during PVI with the RFB resulted in comparable freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia compared to conventional delivery times with comparable efficiency and safety.
Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.A. received institutional compensation for teaching and proctoring from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. G.-B.C. received compensation for teaching purposes and proctoring from Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Acutus Medical. C.d.A. received research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, Abbott, LivaNova, Boston Scientific, AtriCure, Philips, and Acutus; C.d.A. received compensation for teaching purposes and proctoring from Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, Livanova, Boston Scientific, Atricure, Acutus Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)