Repeat catheter ablation after very late recurrence of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) recurs in about one-third of patients after catheter ablation (CA), mostly in the first year. Little is known about the electrophysiological findings and the effect of re-ablation in very late AF recurrences (VLR) after more than 1 year. The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and outcomes of the first repeat CA after VLR of AF after index CA. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed patients from a prospective Swiss registry that underwent a first repeat ablation procedure. Patients were stratified depending on the time to recurrence after index procedure: early recurrence (ER) for recurrences within the first year and late recurrence (LR) if the recurrence was later. The primary endpoint was freedom from AF in the first year after repeat ablation. Out of 1864 patients included in the registry, 426 patients undergoing a repeat ablation were included in the analysis (28% female, age 63 ± 9.8 years, 46% persistent AF). Two hundred and ninety-one patients (68%) were stratified in the ER group and 135 patients (32%) in the LR group. Pulmonary vein reconnections were a common finding in both groups, with 93% in the ER group compared to 86% in the LR group (P = 0.052). In the LR group, 40 of 135 patients (30%) had a recurrence of AF compared to 90 of 291 patients (31%) in the ER group (log-rank P = 0.72). CONCLUSION: There was no association between the time to recurrence of AF after initial CA and the characteristics and outcomes of the repeat procedure.

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.