Impact of high frequency stimulation to confirm a complete box isolation in catheter ablation of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) including the left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) (Box-PVI) is proposed as an additional strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF), however, the efficacy remains controversial. The more reliable and durable the Box-PVI we can create, the better the rhythm outcomes might be than with a conventional PVI alone. This study focused on the potential exit conduction of the box lesion and investigated whether the conventional Box-PVI would be sufficient. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 350 consecutive patients with NPAF that underwent a conventional encircling Box-PVI and examined whether latent exit conduction and dormant "exit" conduction independently remained on the LAPW and in the PVs using high frequency stimulation (HFS) and an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) injection. All electrograms inside the box lesion were eliminated in all cases, however, HFS inside the box propagated outward in 23 cases (6.6%) without any exit conduction by conventional burst stimulation, and 24 cases (6.9%) exhibited only dormant "exit" conduction of the LAPW. Additional ablation where positive HFSs were observed created a complete bidirectional Box-PVI in 43 (41.3%) of the cases without a first pass Box-PVI. The recurrence rates depended on the groups classified according to the HFS response. CONCLUSION: HFS delivered with an ATP injection on the LAPW and in the PVs following a Box-PVI could not only elucidate true exit block but also identified possible incomplete lesions or connections outside the ablation line, whose elimination could achieve a complete Box-PVI leading to a better rhythm outcome.

Potential complications in patients undergoing an ethanol injection into the vein of Marshall.

BACKGROUND: Ethanol injections into the vein of Marshall (VOM) (EIM) are considered to be a good therapeutic option for atrial tachyarrhythmias, however, the safety remains to be determined. To elucidate what would affect the safety and potential complications of an EIM, we investigated the anatomical features of the VOM and patient background. METHODS: We performed the EIM before the conventional pulmonary vein isolation for drug-resistant atrial fibrillation in 88 patients and evaluated the anatomical features of the VOM and their background. RESULTS: All procedures were completed, however, other than myocardial staining, trivial contrast medium leaked out of the VOM into the pericardial space, that is, extravasation of contrast medium with capillary rupture, during the EIM in 20 patients (22.7%) regardless of the features of the VOM. No pericardial effusions requiring further intervention developed after the extravasation, which resolved by the next day on echocardiography in 18 of those patients. However, two patients who had extravasation other than during the initial contrast injection required additional therapeutic intervention for nonnegligible pericardial effusions. Their body weights were significantly lower and the latter two patients were also small lean women with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The physical constitution, regardless of the characteristics of the VOM, could be strongly associated with adverse events during the EIM. We must take extreme care in smaller patients with poor compliant hearts during the EIM.