Posterior wall isolation in persistent atrial fibrillation. Long-term outcomes of a repeat procedure strategy

Safety and effectiveness of additional left atrial posterior wall ablation using pulsed field ablation for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients

INTRODUCTION

The unique safety profile of pulsed field ablation (PFA) has made pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) ablation promising for treating persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). The goal of this study was to assess long-term freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia (AF/AFL/AT), as well as the safety and feasibility of LAPW PFA using multipolar, pentaspline Farawave catheter.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study at a single institution. Data for 94 patients were collected from a prespecified intraprocedural registry. The long-term AF/AFL/AT recurrence assessment was based on an analysis of medical history; 24-h Holter ECGs at 3, 6, and 12 months postablation; and 12-lead ECGs recorded during symptomatic episodes or visits.

RESULTS

Half of the patients had ls-PerAF, and half had a history of catheter ablation-mostly RF PVI. The acute ablation success rate was 100%, and the primary safety outcome was observed in 2 patients. Fifty patients experienced AF/AFL/AT recurrence (54.3%). An increase in LAPW low-voltage areas and AF classification were associated with arrhythmia recurrence. After a median follow-up of 13 months, the Kaplan‒Meier estimated median time free of AF/AFL/AT after a single procedure was 14.7 months.

CONCLUSION

PFA PVI + PWA had the best outcome in perAF patients without extensive LA fibrosis. AF recurrence was paroxysmal in significant part of the cohort. The addition of PWA to PVI using multipolar PFA was safe and did not significantly influence the transpired ablation time.

Repeat catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established therapy that reduces AF burden, improves quality of life, and reduces the risks of cardiovascular outcomes. Although there are clear guidelines for the application of de novo catheter ablation, there is less evidence to guide recommendations for repeat catheter ablation in patients who experience recurrent AF. In this review, we examine the rationale for repeat ablation, mechanisms of recurrence, patient selection, optimal timing, and procedural strategies. We discuss additional important considerations, including treatment of comorbidities and risk factors, risk of complications, and effectiveness. Mechanisms of recurrent AF are often due to non-pulmonary vein (non-PV) triggers; however, there is insufficient evidence supporting the routine use of empiric lesion sets during repeat ablation. The emergence of pulsed field ablation may alter the safety and effectiveness of de novo and repeat ablation. Extrapolation of data from randomized trials of de novo ablation does not optimally inform efficacy in cases of redo ablation. Additional large, randomized controlled trials are needed to address important clinical questions regarding procedural strategies and timing of repeat ablation.

Focal pulsed field ablation and ultrahigh-density mapping - versatile tools for all atrial arrhythmias? Initial procedural experiences

BACKGROUND

Focal pulsed field ablation (FPFA) is a novel and promising method of cardiac ablation. The aim of this study was to report the feasibility, short-term safety, and procedural findings for a broad spectrum of ablated atrial arrhythmias.

METHODS

Patients (n = 51) scheduled for ablation of atrial arrhythmias were prospectively included and underwent FPFA using the Galvanize CENTAURI generator with energy delivery through commercially available ablation catheters with ultrahigh-density (UHDx) 3D electroanatomic voltage/local activation time map evaluations. Workflow, procedural data, and peri-procedural technical errors and complications are described.

RESULTS

Planned ablation strategy was achieved with FPFA-only in 48/51 (94%) of the cases. Ablation strategy was first-time pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in 17/51 (36%), repeat ablation in 18/51 (38%), PVI + in 13/51 (28%), and cavotricuspid isthmus block (CTI)-only in 3/51 (6%). The mean procedure time was 104 ± 31 min (first-time PVI), 114 ± 26 min (repeat procedure), 152 ± 36 min (PVI +), and 62 ± 17 min (CTI). Mean UHDx mapping time to assess lesion formation and block after ablation was 7 ± 4 min with 5485 ± 4809 points. First pass acute (linear) isolation with bidirectional block for anatomical lesion sets was 120/124 (97%) for all PVs, 17/17 (100%) for (any) isthmus, and 14/17 (82%) for left atrium posterior wall (LAPW). We observed several time-consuming integration errors with the used ablation system (mean 3.4 ± 3.7 errors/procedure), one transient inferior ST elevation when ablating CTI resolved by intravenous nitroglycerine and one transient AV block requiring temporary pacing for > 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

FPFA was a highly versatile method to treat atrial arrhythmias with high first-pass efficiency. UHDx revealed acute homogenous low-voltage lesions in ablated areas. More data is needed to establish lesion durability and limitations of FPFA.