Association between the locations of non-pulmonary vein triggers and ablation outcomes in repeat procedures after cryoballoon ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: We examined the characteristics of non-pulmonary vein (PV) triggers in repeat ablation after cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). METHODS: This study evaluated 119 patients undergoing a second ablation procedure for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) after cryoballoon PV isolation (CB-PVI) for PAF. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 119 (45%) patients had PV reconnection. All reconnected PVs were isolated. No non-PV triggers were elicited in 42/119 (35%) patients (NNPV group). In 77/119 (65%) patients, 139 isoproterenol-induced non-PV triggers, including 45 triggers that initiated AF, were identified. Non-PV triggers initiating AF were observed at the superior vena cava (SVC), left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) including the PV antra, interatrial septum, right atrium, left atrial appendage/mitral anulus, and coronary sinus in 14 (12%), 10 (8%), 8 (7%), 7 (6%), 4 (3%), and 2 (2%) patients, respectively. Non-PV triggers originated from only the SVC and/or LAPW including the PV antra, and the SVC and/or LAPW was isolated in 18/119 (15%) patients (SVC/LAPW group). Non-PV triggers originating from other sites were focally ablated in 59/119 (50%) patients (OS group). During a median 461 days of follow-up, 39/42 (93%), 17/18 (94%), and 38/59 (64%) patients in the NNPV, SVC/LAPW, and OS groups, respectively, remained ATA recurrence-free. The recurrence rate was higher in the OS group than in the NNPV (P = 0.005) or SVC/LAPW groups (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Over half of patients had non-PV triggers at subsequent ablation after CB-PVI. Non-PV triggers from the SVC/LAPW can be eliminated more successfully than triggers from other sites.

Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Little evidence exists regarding cryoballoon ablation (CBA) of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We compared CBA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of PAF in HD patients, referring to CBA of PAF in non-HD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This historical cohort study examined 88 patients who underwent catheter ablation of PAF, including 21 HD patients with a second-generation 28-mm cryoballoon (CB-HD group), 17 HD patients with a non-force-sensing radiofrequency catheter (RF-HD group), and 50 non-HD patients with a cryoballoon (CB-non-HD group). Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation alone aside from cavotricuspid isthmus ablation was performed in 14 (67%) in the CB-HD group, 12 (71%) in the RF-HD group, and 36 (72%) in the CB-non-HD group (P = 0.95), without isoproterenol-induced non-PV triggers. Non-PV trigger ablation was added to the other patients. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 1-year freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence without antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure was 76%, 59%, and, 92% in the CB-HD, RF-HD, and CB-non-HD groups, respectively (P = 0.002). The mean procedure time was shorter in the CB-HD group than in the RF-HD group (127 vs. 199 min; P < 0.001). In the second procedure, the median number of reconnected pulmonary veins was 0.5 in the CB-HD group versus 2.0 in the RF-HD group (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: For PAF in HD patients, CBA showed a comparable single-procedure efficacy to that of RFA with a short procedure time. CBA may be a reasonable initial procedure for HD patients suffering from symptomatic PAF.

Differences in the electrophysiological findings of repeat ablation between patients who first underwent cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have revealed that second-generation cryoballoon (CB)-based pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is noninferior to radiofrequency (RF)-based PV isolation for patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, electrophysiological differences in repeat ablation remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study examined electrophysiological differences during the repeat ablation between patients who first underwent RF catheter ablation and CB ablation; PV durability and non-PV AF foci were assessed for these patients. We enrolled 919 and 491 patients who underwent CB ablation (CB group) and RF catheter ablation (RF group), respectively, for paroxysmal AF between January 2013 and June 2017 at our institution. PV isolation using RF ablation involved the left atrium (LA) antrum and part of the LA posterior wall. After 2 years of follow-up, 62 and 80 patients in the CB and RF groups, respectively, underwent repeat ablation. PV reconnections were more frequent in the RF group than in the CB group (left superior PV: 46.2% and 14.5%, P < .001; left inferior PV: 35.0% and 11.2%, P = .001; right superior PV: 40.0% and 22.6%, P = .031; right inferior PV: 36.2% and 19.4%, P = .039; PVs: 39.8% and 16.9%, P < .001). LA AF foci were more frequent in the CB group than in the RF group (27.4% and 7.5%; P = .002). Other non-PV foci were prevalent in both groups. CONCLUSION: Fewer LA-PV reconnections occurred with CB ablation. However, extensive PV isolation may eliminate many LA AF foci.

Paradoxical embolism caused by ovarian vein thrombosis extending to inferior vena cava in a female with uterine myoma.

Deep vein thrombosis occasionally causes paradoxical embolism in patients with a patent foramen ovale (PFO). We report the case of a 42-year-old female who was hospitalized for stroke. Detailed investigations revealed the existence of a PFO, pulmonary embolism, and ovarian vein thrombosis extending to inferior vena cava. She had a uterine myoma to be operated on but no other thrombophilic disorders. Anticoagulation therapy with direct oral anticoagulant successfully reduced the thrombus and prevented the recurrence of paradoxical embolism. .