Aislamiento eléctrico venoso pulmonar con catéter láser en el tratamiento de la fibrilación auricular paroxística y persistente. Resultados a un año

Personalized assessment of the cumulative complication risk of the atrial fibrillation ablation track: The AF-TRACK calculator

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy is associated with a non-negligible risk of complications and often requires repeat procedures (AF ablation track), implying repetitive exposure to procedural risk.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a model to estimate individualized cumulative risk of complications in patients undergoing the AF ablation track (Atrial Fibrillation TRAck Complication risK [AF-TRACK] calculator).

Methods

The model was derived from a multicenter cohort including 3762 AF ablation procedures in 2943 patients. A first regression model was fitted to predict the propensity for repeat ablation. The AF-TRACK calculator computed the risk of AF ablation track complications, considering the propensity for repeat ablation. Internal (cross-validation) and external (independent cohort) validation were assessed for discrimination capacity (area under the curve [AUC]) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL] test).

Results

Complications (N = 111) occurred in 3.7% of patients (2.9% of procedures). Predictors included female sex, heart failure, sleep apnea syndrome, and repeat procedures. The model showed fair discrimination capacity to predict complications (AUC 0.61 [0.55-0.67]) and likelihood of repeat procedure (AUC 0.62 [0.60-0.64]), with good calibration (HL χ² 12.5; P = .13). The model maintained adequate discrimination capacity (AUC 0.67 [0.57-0.77]) and calibration (HL χ² 5.6; P = .23) in the external validation cohort. The validated model was used to create the Web-based AF-TRACK calculator.

Conclusion

The proposed risk model provides individualized estimates of the cumulative risk of complications of undergoing the AF ablation track. The AF-TRACK calculator is a validated, easy-to-use, Web-based clinical tool to calibrate the risk-to-benefit ratio of this treatment strategy.

Efficacy and Safety of Second and Third-Generation Laser Balloon for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Compared to Radiofrequency Ablation: A Matched-Cohort

Laser balloon (LB) has emerged as an interesting strategy for pulmonary vein isolation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). A third-generation LB has recently been developed, allowing a continuous ablation set. We aimed to compare the results from our center's experience with second and third-generation LBs to a cohort of matched patients who had undergone radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with contact-force catheters. This retrospective monocenter case-control study included our first 50 LB paroxysmal AF ablations (26 second and 24 third-generation LB) and 50 RFA controls, matched on age, sex and left atrial dilation. The two groups had similar baseline parameters. LB procedures were significantly shorter than RFA (129 (110-160) vs. 160 (119-198) min, p = 0.007). During AF ablation, two major complications occurred in each group. At the one-year follow-up, AF recurrence was diagnosed in 7 (14%) of the LB group vs. 14 (28%) of the RFA group (p = 0.14). Moreover, we observed that third-generation LB procedures were associated with shorter laser applications (22 (19-29) vs. 69 (55-76) min, p < 0.001) and procedural durations (111 (100-128) vs. 151.5 (128.5-167) min, p < 0.001) compared to second-generation LB procedures. In the context of the major increase in the number of AF ablations, LB demonstrated consistent results in terms of clinical success, complications and also reduced procedure durations compared to RFA.

Clinical Applications of Laser Technology: Laser Balloon Ablation in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter-based ablation techniques have a well-established role in atrial fibrillation (AF) management. The prevalence and impact of AF is increasing globally, thus mandating an emphasis on improving ablation techniques through innovation. One key area of ongoing evolution in this field is the use of laser energy to perform pulmonary vein isolation during AF catheter ablation. While laser use is not as widespread as other ablation techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon ablation, advancements in product design and procedural protocols have demonstrated laser balloon ablation to be equally safe and effective compared to these other modalities. Additionally, strategies to improve procedural efficiency and decrease radiation exposure through low fluoroscopy protocols make this technology an increasingly promising and exciting option.

Laser balloon ablation for AF: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The HeartLight laser balloon ablation system was US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2016 for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), but there have been numerous single-center and multicenter studies published reporting its outcomes, in addition to a few randomized trials. We aimed to systematically review and synthesize currently published outcome data on AF ablation using the laser balloon ablation system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies of AF ablation performed using the laser balloon ablation system. Human studies reporting acute procedural results with a minimum of 6 months follow-up were included. Outcomes of interest included acute and 12-month procedural efficacy, safety, and procedure duration. Aggregated data were analyzed with random effects models, using a Bayesian hierarchical approach. We identified 17 published manuscripts comprising a sample of 1188 patients (mean age 61 years, 80% paroxysmal). At procedure end, 98.8% of targeted pulmonary veins were successfully isolated. The pooled estimate for 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia without use of antiarrhythmic drugs for patients with paroxysmal AF was 74.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.9% to 86.4%), and for all AF types combined was 72.9% (65.3% to 79.9%). The most commonly reported procedural complication was phrenic nerve injury (pooled incidence 2.6%; 95% CI, 1.4% to 3.9%), which resolved during follow-up in most cases.

CONCLUSION

Laser balloon ablation is highly effective at achieving pulmonary vein isolation. Although comparisons are mainly indirect, safety and 12-month efficacy compare favorably with those observed using other currently used AF ablation technologies.

Postprocedural LGE-CMR comparison of laser and radiofrequency ablation lesions after pulmonary vein isolation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical characteristics of scar formation achieved by visual-guided laser balloon (Laser) and radiofrequency (RF) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), using late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-CMR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 17 patients with paroxysmal or early persistent drug resistant AF who underwent Laser ablation; 2 were excluded due to procedure-related complications. The sample was matched with a historical group of 15 patients who underwent PVI using RF. LGE-CMR sequences were acquired before and 3 months post-PVI. Ablation gaps were defined as pulmonary vein (PV) perimeter sections showing no gadolinium enhancement. The number of ablation gaps was lower in Laser versus RF ablations (median 7 vs. 14, P  =  0.015). Complete anatomical PVI (circumferential scar around PV, without gaps) was more frequently achieved with Laser than with RF (39% vs. 19% of PVs, P  =  0.025). Fewer gaps were present at the superior and anterior left PV and posterior right PV antral regions in the Laser group, compared to RF. Scar extension into the PVs was similar in both groups, although RF produced more extensive ablation scar toward the LA body. AF recurrences at 1 year were similar in both groups (Laser 36% vs. RF 27%, P  =  1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to RF, Laser ablation achieved more complete anatomical PVI, with less LA scar extension. However, AF recurrence appears to be similar after Laser compared to RF ablation. Further studies are needed to assess whether the anatomical advantages of Laser ablation translate into clinical benefit in patients with AF.