Rhythm Monitoring Strategy and Arrhythmia Recurrence in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Trials: A Systematic Review

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

Accuracy of symptoms and pulse checking for detecting atrial fibrillation following catheter ablation

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in the possibility of discontinuing oral anticoagulation following successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it remains unknown whether patients can accurately detect arrhythmia recurrences following ablation. We therefore sought to characterize the accuracy of pulse checking and arrhythmia symptoms for the identification of AF following ablation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included patients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) treated with catheter ablation for AF who recorded the results from minimum twice daily pulse checks and additionally with arrhythmia symptoms into a diary for 2 months following their procedure. Accuracy of this self-assessment protocol was determined by comparison to ICM-detected AF.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients (age 69 ± 8 years, 30 (55%) male, CHA2DS2VASc score 3.2 ± 1. 5) were included. Patients recorded a total of 5911 pulse checks, and there were 280 episodes of ICM-documented AF among 26 patients with an average duration of 2.5 ± 3.3 h. Among 362 episodes of patient-suspected AF, 134 correlated with ICM-identified AF (37% true positive rate). Of the 5549 pulse checks that did not identify AF, 196 correlated with ICM-identified AF (4% false negative rate). Twice daily pulse checking had a sensitivity of 47% and a specificity of 96% for identifying each episode of AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that a strategy of pulse checks and symptom assessment is insufficient to identify all episodes of AF in many patients following catheter ablation.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Left atrial posterior wall isolation using pulsed-field ablation: procedural characteristics, safety, and mid-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Non-pulmonary vein (PV) ablation targets such as posterior wall isolation (PWI) have been tested in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) offers a novel ablation technology possibly able to overcome the obstacles of incomplete PWI and concerns of damage to adjacent structures compared to thermal energy sources. Our aim was to assess procedural characteristics, safety, and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing PWI using PFA in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PFA-PVI with PWI were included. First-pass isolation was controlled using a multipolar mapping catheter.

RESULTS

One hundred consecutive patients were included (median age 69 [IQR 63-75] years, 33 females (33%), left atrial size 43 [IQR 39-47] mm, paroxysmal AF 24%). Median procedure time was 66 (IQR 59-77) min, and fluoroscopy time was 11 (8-14) min. PWI using PFA was achieved in 100% of patients with a median of 19 applications (IQR 14-26). There were no major complications. Overall, in 15 patients (15%), recurrent AF/AT was noted during a median follow-up of 144 (94-279) days.

CONCLUSIONS

PWI using PFA appears safe and results in high acute isolation rates and high arrhythmia survival during mid-term follow-up. Further randomized trials are essential and warranted.

Efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed field ablation vs. novel cryoballoon ablation system for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel treatment technology for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Cryoballoon (CB) is the most frequently used single shot technology. A direct comparison to a novel CB system is lacking. We aimed to compare pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using PFA vs. a novel CB system regarding efficiency, safety, myocardial injury, and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one consecutive patients underwent PVI and were included (age 64 ± 9.7 years, ejection fraction 0.58 ± 0.09, left atrial size 40 ± 6.4 mm, paroxysmal AF 64%). 106 patients (59%) underwent PFA (FARAPULSE, Boston Scientific) and 75 patients (41%) underwent CB ablation (PolarX, Boston Scientific). The median procedure time, left atrial dwell time and fluoroscopic time were similar between the PFA and the CB group with 55 [interquartile range (IQR) 43-64] min vs. 58 (IQR 48-69) min (P < 0.087), 38 (30-49) min vs. 37 (31-48) min, (P = 0.871), and 11 (IQR 9.3-14) min vs. 11 (IQR 8.7-16) min, (P < 0.81), respectively. Three procedural complications were observed in the PFA group (two tamponades, one temporary ST elevation) and three complications in the CB group (3× reversible phrenic nerve palsies). During the median follow-up of 404 days (IQR 208-560), AF recurrence was similar in the PFA group and the CB group with 24 vs. 30%, P = 0.406.

CONCLUSION

Procedural characteristics were very similar between PFA and CB in regard to procedure duration fluoroscopy time and complications. Atrial fibrillation free survival did not differ between the PFA and CB groups.

Standard vs Augmented Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: The AWARE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly occurs after catheter ablation and is associated with patient morbidity and health care costs.

Objective

To evaluate the superiority of an augmented double wide-area circumferential ablation (WACA) compared with a standard single WACA in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias (AA) (atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, or atrial fibrillation [AF]) in patients with paroxysmal AF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point superiority clinical trial conducted at 10 university-affiliated centers in Canada. The trial enrolled patients 18 years and older with symptomatic paroxysmal AF from March 2015 to May 2017. Analysis took place between January and April 2022. Analyses were intention to treat.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive radiofrequency catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation with either a standard single WACA or an augmented double WACA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was AA recurrence between 91 and 365 days postablation. Patients underwent 42 days of ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring after ablation. Secondary outcomes included need for repeated catheter ablation and procedural and safety variables.

Results

Of 398 patients, 195 were randomized to the single WACA (control) arm (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.3] years; 65 [33.3%] female) and 203 to the double WACA (experimental) arm (mean [SD] age, 61.5 [9.3] years; 66 [32.5%] female). Overall, 52 patients (26.7%) in the single WACA arm and 50 patients (24.6%) in the double WACA arm had recurrent AA at 1 year (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.29; P = .64). Twenty patients (10.3%) in the single WACA arm and 15 patients (7.4%) in the double WACA arm underwent repeated catheter ablation (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.36). Adjudicated serious adverse events occurred in 13 patients (6.7%) in the single WACA arm and 14 patients (6.9%) in the double WACA arm.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with paroxysmal AF, additional ablation by performing a double ablation lesion set did not result in improved freedom from recurrent AA compared with a standard single ablation set.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02150902.