Comparison of treatment outcomes between convergent procedure and catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation evaluated with implantable loop recorder monitoring

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.

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 .

Convergent approach to persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: long-term single-centre safety and efficacy

Background

Efforts to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) remain challenging, with suboptimal long-term outcomes.

Methods

All patients undergoing convergent PsAF ablation at our centre were retrospectively analysed. The Atricure Epi-Sense® system was used to perform surgical radiofrequency ablation of the LA posterior wall followed by endocardial ablation.

Results

A total of 24 patients underwent convergent PsAF ablation, and 21 (84%) of them were male with a median age of 63. Twelve (50%) patients were obese. In total, 71% of patients had a severely dilated left atrium, and the majority (63%) had preserved left ventricular function. All were longstanding persistent. Eighteen (75%) patients had an AF duration of >2 years. There were no endocardial procedure complications. At 36 months, all patients were alive with no new stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Freedom from documented AF at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months was 83%, 78%, 74%, 74%, 74%, and 61%, respectively. There were no major surgical complications, with five minor complications recorded comprising minor wound infection, pericarditic pain, and hernia.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that convergent AF ablation is effective with excellent immediate and long-term safety outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with a significant duration of AF and evidence of established atrial remodelling. Convergent AF ablation appears to offer a safe and effective option for those who are unlikely to benefit from existing therapeutic strategies for maintaining sinus rhythm, and further evaluation of this exciting technique is warranted. Our cohort is unique within the published literature both in terms of length of follow-up and very low rate of adverse events.

Mid term freedom from atrial fibrillation following hybrid ablation, a systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common tachyarrhythmia affecting 33 million people worldwide. Hybrid AF ablation utilises a surgical (epicardial) ablation followed by an endocardial catheter-based ablation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the literature reporting mid-term freedom from AF following hybrid ablation.

METHODS

An electronic search of databases was performed to identify all relevant studies providing mid-term (2 year) outcomes following hybrid ablation for AF. The primary study outcome was to assess the mid-term freedom from AF following hybrid ablation, utilising the metaprop function on Stata® (Version 17.0, StataCorp, Texas, USA). Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of various operative characteristics on mid-term freedom from AF. The secondary outcomes assessed mortality and procedural complication rate.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 16 studies qualifying for inclusion in this meta-analysis, with 1242 patients in total. The majority of papers were retrospective cohort studies (15) and one study was a randomized control trial (RCT). The mean follow up was 31.5 ± 8.4 months. Following hybrid ablation, the overall mid-term freedom from AF was 74.6% and 65.4% for patients off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). Actuarial freedom from AF was 78.2%, 74.2% and 73.6% at 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. No significant differences in mid-term freedom from AF based epicardial lesion set (box vs pulmonary vein isolation) or Left atrial appendage/Ganglionated Plexus/Ligament of Marshall ablation or staged vs concomitant procedures. There were 12 deaths overall following the hybrid procedure with a pooled complication rate of 5.53%.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid AF ablation offers promising mid-term freedom from AF reported at a mean follow-up of 31.5 months. The overall complication rate remains low. Further analysis of high-quality studies with randomized data and long-term follow up will help verify these results.

Rhythm outcomes of minimally-invasive off-pump surgical versus catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND

Mid- and long-term rhythm outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are reported to be suboptimal. Minimally invasive surgical off-pump ablation (MISOA), including both thoracoscopic and trans-diaphragmatic approaches, has been developed to reduce surgical invasiveness and overcome on-pump surgery drawbacks. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of MISOA and CA for AF treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed including studies comparing MISOA and CA. The primary endpoint was survival freedom from AF at follow-up after a 3-month blanking period. Subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint was performed according to the type of surgical incision and hybrid approach.

RESULTS

Freedom from AF at 4 years was 52.1% ± 3.2% vs 29.1% ± 3.5%, between MISOA and CA respectively (log-rank p < 0.001; Hazard Ratio: 0.60 [95%Confidence Interval (CI):0.50-0.72], p < 0.001). At landmark analysis, a significant improvement in rhythm outcomes was observed in the MISOA group after the 5th month of follow-up (2 months from the blanking period). The Odds Ratio between MISOA and CA of postoperative cerebrovascular accident incidence and postoperative permanent pacemaker implant (PPM) were 2.00 (95%CI:0.91-4.40, p = 0.084) and 1.55 (95%CI:0.61-3.95, p = 0.358), respectively. The incidence rate ratio of late CVA between MISOA and CA was 0.86 (95%CI:0.28-2.65, p = 0.787), while for late PPM implant was 0.45 (95%CI:0.11-1.78, p = 0.256).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis suggests that MISOA provides superior rhythm outcomes when compared to CA in terms of sinus rhythm restoration. Despite the rhythm outcome superiority of MISOA, it is associated to higher postoperative complications compared to CA.

Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials and propensity matched studies

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. Hybrid convergent ablation (HCA) is an emerging procedure for treating longstanding AF with promising results. HCA consists of a subxiphoid, surgical ablation followed by completion endocardial ablation. This meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCT’s) and propensity score-matched studies aims to examine the efficacy and safety of HCA compared to endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) alone on patients with AF.

Methods

This review was written in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommendations and guidance. The primary outcome for the analysis was freedom from AF (FFAF) at final follow up. Secondary outcomes were mortality and significant complications such as tamponade, sternotomy, esophageal injury, atrio-esophageal fistulae post procedurally.

Results

Four studies where included, with a total of 233 patients undergoing HCA and 189 patients undergoing ECA only. Pooled analysis demonstrated that HCA cohorts had significantly higher rates of FFAF than ECA cohorts, with an OR of 2.78 (95% CI 1.82–4.24, P < 0.01, I² = 0). Major post-operative complications were observed in significantly more patients in the HCA group, with an OR of 5.14 (95% CI 1.70–15.54, P < 0.01). There was only one death reported in the HCA cohorts, with no deaths in the ECA cohort.

Conclusion

HCA is associated with a significantly higher FFAF than ECA, however, it is associated with increased post-procedural complications. There was only one death in the HCA cohort. Large RCT’s comparing the HCA and ECA techniques may further validate these results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01930-7.

A Review of the Wide Range of Indications and Uses of Implantable Loop Recorders: A Review of the Literature

Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are devices that are implanted subcutaneously on the chest, which enables the continuous monitoring of arrhythmias for up to three years. These devices have an important role in helping to make a diagnosis and supporting decisions about the best patient management. There are currently three companies that produce ILRs. The Reveal DX and XT device is produced by Medtronic. The Confirm device is produced by Abbott. The Biomonitor III device is produced by Biotronik. The established indications for ILR include the management of transient loss of consciousness and the diagnosis of undocumented palpitations; however, they are also used for less established applications, including atrial fibrillation (AF) monitoring and risk stratification in patients with previous myocardial infarction or inherited cardiomyopathies. There is also diverse literature exploring the use of these devices in other populations, including patients with conditions such as congenital heart disease, amyloidosis, stroke, obstructive sleep apnea, renal transplant and patients who undergo procedures such as AF ablation and coronary artery bypass graft. In this review, we describe how the use of ILR has been applied in different settings, including patients with cardiac and non-cardiac conditions as well as post-cardiac procedures. We then discuss the potential issues related to using ILR in these other indications.

Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited efficacy. Hybrid convergent procedure (HCP) with both epicardial and endocardial ablation is a novel strategy for AF treatment. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HCP in AF ablation.

METHOD

We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of HCP compared with ECA for AF. The primary outcome was freedom of atrial arrhythmia (AA). The secondary outcome was the periprocedural complication rate. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies, including 797 AF patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 9.8 years, 366 patients with HCP vs. 431 patients with ECA alone), were included. HCP showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared with ECA (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.13-1.94, p = .004). However, HCP was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications (RR: 3.64, 95% CI: 2.06-6.43; p = .00001). Moreover, the HCP had a longer procedure time and postprocedural hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Although hybrid ablation was associated with a higher success rate, this should be judged for increased periprocedural adverse events and extended hospital stay. Prospective large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these results.

Hybrid Convergent Procedure for the Treatment of Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Background:

The limited effectiveness of endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment led to the development of a minimally invasive epicardial/endocardial ablation approach (Hybrid Convergent) to achieve a more comprehensive lesion set with durable transmural lesions. The multicenter randomized controlled CONVERGE trial (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF) evaluated the safety of Hybrid Convergent and compared its effectiveness to CA for persistent and long-standing persistent AF treatment.

Methods:

One-hundred fifty-three patients were randomized 2:1 to Hybrid Convergent versus CA. Primary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia absent new/increased dosage of previously failed/intolerant class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs through 12 months. Primary safety was major adverse events through 30 days. CONVERGE permitted left atrium size up to 6 cm and imposed no limits on AF duration, making it the only ablation trial to substantially include long-standing persistent–AF, that is, 42% patients with long-standing persistent–AF.

Results:

Of 149 evaluable patients at 12 months, primary effectiveness was achieved in 67.7% (67/99) patients with Hybrid Convergent and 50.0% (25/50) with CA ( P =0.036) on/off previously failed antiarrhythmic drugs and in 53.5% (53/99) versus 32.0% (16/50; P =0.0128) respectively off antiarrhythmic drugs. At 18 months using 7-day Holter, 74.0% (53/72) Hybrid Convergent and 55% (23/42) CA patients experienced ≥90% AF burden reduction. A total of 2.9% (3/102) patients had primary safety events within 7 days, and 4.9% (5/102) between 8 and 30 days postprocedure. No deaths, cardiac perforations, or atrioesophageal fistulas occurred. All but one primary safety event resolved.

Conclusions:

The Hybrid Convergent procedure has superior effectiveness compared to the CA for the treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01984346.

The Convergent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Procedure: Evolution of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Atrial Fibrillation Management

The treatment of AF has evolved over the past decade with increasing use of catheter ablation in patients refractory to medical therapy. While pulmonary vein isolation using endocardial catheter ablation has been successful in paroxysmal AF, the results have been more controversial in patients with long-standing persistent AF where extrapulmonary venous foci are increasingly recognised in the initiation and maintenance of AF. Hybrid ablation is the integration of minimally invasive epicardial ablation with endocardial catheter ablation, and has been increasingly used in this population with better results. The aim of this article was to analyse and discuss the evidence for the integration of catheter and minimally invasive surgical approaches to treat AF with specific focus on convergent ablation and exclusion of the left atrial appendage using a surgically applied clip.