First-line management of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: is it time for a 'pill in the bin' approach? A discussion on the STOP AF First, EARLY AF, Cryo-FIRST, and EAST-AF NET 4 clinical trials

Predictors of first pass isolation of the pulmonary veins in real world ablations: An analysis of 2671 patients from the REAL-AF registry

INTRODUCTION

During atrial fibrillation ablation (AFA), achievement of first pass isolation (FPI) reflects effective lesion formation and predicts long-term freedom from arrhythmia recurrence. We aim to determine the clinical and procedural predictors of pulmonary vein FPI.

METHODS

We reviewed AFA procedures in a multicenter prospective registry of AFA (REAL-AF). A multivariate ordinal logistic regression, weighted by inverse proceduralist volume, was used to determine predictors of FPI.

RESULTS

A total of 2671 patients were included with 1806 achieving FPI in both vein sides, 702 achieving FPI in one, and 163 having no FPI. Individually, age, left atrial (LA) scar, higher power usage (50 W), greater posterior contact force, ablation index >350 posteriorly, Vizigo™ sheath utilization, nonstandard ventilation, and high operator volume (>6 monthly cases) were all related to improved odds of FPI. Conversely sleep apnea, elevated body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, LA enlargement, antiarrhythmic drug use, and center's higher fluoroscopy use were related to reduced odds of FPI. Multivariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 (OR 0.78 [0.64-0.96]) and LA volume (OR per mL increase = 1.00 [0.99-1.00]) predicted lower odds of achieving FPI, whereas significant left atrial scarring (>20%) was related to higher rates of FPI. Procedurally, the use of high power (50 W) (OR 1.32 [1.05-1.65]), increasing force posteriorly (OR 2.03 [1.19-3.46]), and nonstandard ventilation (OR 1.26 [1.00-1.59]) predicted higher FPI rates. At a site level, high procedural volume (OR 1.89 [1.48-2.41]) and low fluoroscopy centers (OR 0.72 [0.61-0.84]) had higher rates of FPI.

CONCLUSION

FPI rates are affected by operator experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural strategies. These factors may be postulated to impact acute lesion formation.

Asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation: Clinical outcomes in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

The outcome implications of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in specific groups of patients according to clinical heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) need to be clarified.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, patients were categorized according to overt HF with LVEF≤40 %, or with LVEF>40 %, or without overt HF with LVEF40 %≤ or > 40 %, as well as according to the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic AF.

RESULTS

A total of 8096 patients, divided into 8 groups according to HF and LVEF, were included with similar proportions of asymptomatic AF (ranging from 43 to 48 %). After a median follow-up of 730 [699 -748] days, the composite outcome (all-cause death and MACE) was significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF associated with HF and reduced LVEF vs. symptomatic AF patients of the same group (p = 0.004). On adjusted Cox regression analysis, asymptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF were independently associated with a higher risk for the composite outcome (aHR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.04-1.69) and all-cause death (aHR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.02-1.73) compared to symptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that HF-LVEF≤40 % asymptomatic patients had the highest cumulative incidence of all-cause death and MACE (p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large European cohort of AF patients, the risk of the composite outcome at 2 years was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic AF in the whole cohort but adverse implications for poor outcomes were found for asymptomatic AF in HF with LVEF≤40 %.

Protecting Against Collateral Damage to Non-cardiac Structures During Endocardial Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Injury to structures adjacent to the heart, particularly oesophageal injury, accounts for a large proportion of fatal and life-altering complications of ablation for persistent AF. Avoiding these complications dictates many aspects of the way ablation is performed. Because avoidance involves limiting energy delivery in areas of interest, fear of extracardiac injury can impede the ability of the operator to perform an effective procedure. New techniques are becoming available that may permit the operator to circumvent this dilemma and deliver effective ablation with less risk to adjacent structures. The authors review all methods available to avoid injury to extracardiac structures to put these developments in context.

Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation from the Perspective of the UK

Randomised evidence supports an early rhythm control strategy as treatment for AF, and catheter ablation outperforms medical therapy in terms of effectiveness when studied as first- and second-line treatment. Despite evidence consistently showing that catheter ablation treatment is superior to medical therapy in most AF patients, only a small proportion receive ablation, in some cases after a prolonged trial of ineffective medical therapy. Health economics research in electrophysiology remains limited but is recognised as being important in influencing positive change to ensure early access to ablation services for all eligible patients. Such information has informed the updated recommendations from the recently published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of AF, but increased awareness is needed to drive real-world adoption and to ensure patients are quickly referred to specialists. In this article, economic evaluations of catheter ablation versus medical therapy are reviewed.