Cryoballoon Ablation and Bipolar Voltage Mapping in Patients With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices.

Left atrial appendage occlusion is utilized as a second line therapy to long-term oral anticoagulation in appropriately selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined the feasibility of cryoballoon (CB) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) subsequent to Watchman device implantation. The study prospectively identified patients with Watchman devices (>90 days old) who underwent CB-PVI ablation between 2018 and 2019. Twelve consecutive patients (male 50%; mean age 71 ± 9 years; CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.4 ± 1.1) underwent CB-PVI procedures after Watchman device implantation (mean 182 ± 82 days). Acute PVI was achieved in 100% of patients. All patients had evidence of complete (n = 9) or partial (n = 3) endothelialization of the surface of the Watchman device with conductive tissue properties demonstrated during electrophysiologic testing. There were no major procedure-related complications including death, stroke, pericardial effusion, device dislodgment, device thrombus, or new or increasing peri-device leak. Mean peri-device leak size (45-day postimplant: 0.06 ± 0.09 mm vs Post-PVI: 0.04 ± 0.06 mm; p = 0.61) remained unchanged. Two patients had recurrence of AF after the 90-day blanking period (13.2 ± 6.6 months). One patient underwent a redo ablation procedure for recurrent AF. This pilot study suggests the potential feasibility of CB-PVI ablation in patients with chronic Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion devices. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of this approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing second-generation cryoballoon and contact force radiofrequency ablation for initial ablation of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the preferred modalities for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Technological advances have improved procedural outcomes, warranting an updated comparison. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBA-2nd generation (CBA-2G) in comparison to RFA-contact force (RFA-CF) in patients with AF. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched until 03/01/2020 for relevant studies comparing CBA-2G versus RFA-CF in patients undergoing initial catheter ablation for AF. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies, involving 11 793 patients were included. There was no difference between the two groups in the outcomes of freedom from atrial arrhythmia (p = .67) and total procedural complications (p = .65). There was a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsy in CBA-2G (odds ratio: 10.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.85 to 19.55; p < .001). Procedure duration was shorter (mean difference: -31.32 min; 95% CI: -40.73 to -21.92; p < .001) and fluoroscopy duration was longer (+3.21 min; 95% CI: 1.09 to 5.33; p = .003) in CBA-2G compared to RFA-CF. In the subgroup analyses of patients with persistent AF and >1 freeze lesion delivered per vein, there was no difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients undergoing initial ablation, CBA-2G and RFA-CF were equally efficacious. The procedure duration was shorter, but with a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsy in CBA-2G. In patients with persistent AF, there was no difference in the efficacy between CBA-2G or RFA-CF techniques.

Supplemental Radiofrequency Ablation After Acutely Unsuccessful Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Isolation is Associated With Increased Risk of Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Cryoballoon (CB) ablation is widely performed for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Anatomic variations in patient pulmonary vein (PV) anatomy are believed to impact short- and long-term procedural success of CB PVI. Methods and Results We hypothesized that failure of initial PV isolation with a standard technique (ie, requiring >2 freeze cycles per PV and/or radiofrequency ablation [RFA] to achieve PV isolation) during index CB PVI procedures would be associated with decreased freedom from AF. We examined a cohort of 177 consecutive patients with drug-refractory AF who underwent CB PVI with a 28-mm balloon second-generation CB device. Mean follow-up time was 19±9 months. Forty-three patients had AF recurrence after the 90-day blanking period after ablation. In 40 patients, acute isolation of one or more PVs could not be achieved by CB ablation with the standard technique (single freeze with or without bonus freeze). To obtain complete acute PVI, 15 patients received extra freeze applications, 20 required supplemental RFA, and 5 received both extra freeze applications and supplemental RFA. Multivariate regression analysis revealed supplemental RFA use during index CB PVI procedures was independently associated with a threefold increased risk of AF recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.01; 1.45-10.87; P=0.003). Conclusions Use of supplemental RFA during CB PVI procedures to assist with isolation of one or more PVs was independently associated with increased risk of AF recurrence. Use of additional freezes to achieve PVI did not increase the risk for recurrent AF.

Comparison between minimal fluoroscopy and conventional approaches for visually guided laser balloon pulmonary vein isolation ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Although balloon-based techniques, such as the laser balloon (LB) ablation have simplified pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), procedural fluoroscopy usage remains higher in comparison to radiofrequency PVI approaches due to limited 3-dimensional mapping system integration. METHODS: In this prospective study, 50 consecutive patients were randomly assigned in alternating fashion to a low fluoroscopy group (LFG; n = 25) or conventional fluoroscopy group (CFG; n = 25) and underwent de novo PVI procedures using visually guided LB technique. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in baseline characteristics or cross-overs between treatment groups. Acute PVI was accomplished in all patients. Mean follow up was 318 ± 69 days. Clinical recurrence of atrial fibrillation after PVI was similar between groups (CFG: 19% vs LFG: 15%; P = .72). Total fluoroscopy time was significantly lower in the LFG than the CFG (1.7 ± 1.4  vs 16.9 ± 5.9 minutes; P < .001) despite similar total procedure duration (143 ± 22 vs 148 ± 22 minutes; P = .42) and mean LA dwell time (63 ± 15 vs 59 ± 10 minutes; P = .28). Mean dose area product was significantly lower in the LFG (181 ± 125 vs 1980 ± 750 µGym2 ; P < .001). Fluoroscopy usage after transseptal access was substantially lower in the LFG (0.63 ± 0.43 vs 11.70 ± 4.32 minutes; P < .001). Complications rates were similar between both groups (4% vs 2%; P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that LB PVI can be safely achieved using a novel low fluoroscopy protocol while also substantially reducing fluoroscopy usage and radiation exposure in comparison to conventional approaches for LB ablation.

Meta-analysis of pulmonary vein isolation ablation for atrial fibrillation conventional vs low- and zero-fluoroscopy approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation exposure during catheter ablation procedures is a significant hazard for both patients and operators. Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures have been historically associated with higher fluoroscopy usage than other electrophysiology procedures. Recent efforts have been made to reduce dependence on fluoroscopy during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) ablation procedures using alternative techniques. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing zero or low fluoroscopy (LF) vs conventional fluoroscopy (CF) approaches for AF ablation. Outcomes of interest included acute and 12-month procedural efficacy, safety, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product. Aggregated data were analyzed with random-effects models, using a Bayesian hierarchical approach. RESULTS: A total of 2228 participants (LF, n = 1190 vs CF, n = 1038) from 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of AF recurrence in 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.343 [0.771-2.340]; P = .297), redo-ablation procedures (OR [95% CI] = 0.521 [0.198-1.323]; P = .186), and procedural complications (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.485-2.204]; P = .979) were similar between LF- and CF-ablation groups. In comparison to CF ablation, LF ablation led to shorter procedure duration (weighted mean differences [WMDs] [95% CI] = -14.6 minutes [-22.5 to -6.8]; P < .001), fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = -8.8 minutes [-11.9 to -5.9]; P < .001), and dose area product (WMD [95% CI] = -1946 mGy/cm2 [-2685 to 1207]; P < .001). CONCLUSION: LF approaches have similar clinical efficacy and safety as CF approaches for PVI. LF approaches are associated with shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy usage, and dose area product during PVI.

Premature ventricular complexes: diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in clinical practice : A state-of-the-art review by the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

Premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) are common arrhythmias in the clinical setting. PVCs in the structurally normal heart are usually benign, but in the presence of structural heart disease (SHD), they may indicate increased risk of sudden death. High PVC burden may induce cardiomyopathy and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction or worsen underlying cardiomyopathy. Sometimes PVCs may be a marker of underlying pathophysiologic process such as myocarditis. Identification of PVC burden is important, since cardiomyopathy and LV dysfunction can reverse after catheter ablation or pharmacological suppression. This state-of-the-art review discusses pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, how to differentiate benign and malignant PVCs, PVCs in the structurally normal heart, underlying SHD, diagnostic procedures (physical examination, electrocardiogram, ambulatory monitoring, exercise testing, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, coronary angiography, electrophysiology study), and treatment (lifestyle modification, electrolyte imbalance, medical, and catheter ablation).

Amiodarone prophylaxis reduces major cardiovascular morbidity and length of stay after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence supports the prophylactic use of beta-blockade in cardiac surgery, postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter occurs in 40% to 60% of patients. Trials that assessed whether amiodarone prophylaxis decreases the incidence of postoperative atrial tachyarrhythmias have had mixed results and were not specifically powered to detect changes in cardiovascular morbidity, length of stay, or mortality. PURPOSE: To see whether prophylactic administration of amiodarone decreases the incidence of major cardiovascular events, length of stay, and mortality after cardiac surgery. DATA SOURCES: English-language and non-English-language publications listed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of published reviews. Sources were searched from the earliest possible dates through February 2005. STUDY SELECTION: Double-blind, randomized studies comparing amiodarone with placebo that reported the incidence of supraventricular arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, or atrial flutter as the primary end point. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently collected all data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: After DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to combine data from 10 trials involving 1744 patients, amiodarone therapy was found to decrease the incidence of atrial fibrillation or flutter (relative risk, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.75]), ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (relative risk, 0.42 [CI, 0.28 to 0.63]), stroke (relative risk, 0.39 [CI, 0.21 to 0.76]), and length of stay (weighted mean difference, -0.63 day [CI, -1.03 to -0.23 days]). All studies reported adverse events, but none indicated how these events were assessed. Three studies found significantly more adverse events with amiodarone therapy, including nausea permitting continuation of therapy, bradycardia of unclear clinical significance, and increased intensive care monitoring and support. LIMITATIONS: Not all studies used beta-blockade, and regimens were not uniform among trials. Few trials met the stringent inclusion criteria, some did not report each type of cardiovascular event, and none reported completeness of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone prophylaxis decreases the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and stroke and length of stay after cardiac surgery. To further evaluate the potential benefits of concomitant prophylaxis with beta-blockers and amiodarone, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial with cardiovascular outcomes that compares amiodarone with placebo in patients already receiving beta-blocker prophylaxis is needed.