Long-term follow-up of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and severe left atrial scarring: comparison between pulmonary vein antrum isolation only or pulmonary vein isolation combined with either scar homogenization or trigger ablation.

AIMS: Left atrial (LA) scarring, a consequence of cardiac fibrosis is a powerful predictor of procedure-outcome in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing catheter ablation. We sought to compare the long-term outcome in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) and severe LA scarring identified by 3D mapping, undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVAI) only or PVAI and the entire scar areas (scar homogenization) or PVAI+ ablation of the non-PV triggers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Totally, 177 consecutive patients with PAF and severe LA scarring were included. Patients underwent PVAI only (n = 45, Group 1), PVAI+ scar homogenization (n = 66, Group 2) or PVAI+ ablation of non-PV triggers (n = 66, Group 3) based on operator's choice. Baseline characteristics were similar across the groups. After first procedure, all patients were followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. The success rate at the end of the follow-up was 18% (8 pts), 21% (14 pts), and 61% (40 pts) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Cumulative probability of AF-free survival was significantly higher in Group 3 (overall log-rank P <0.01, pairwise comparison 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 3 P < 0.01). During repeat procedures, non-PV triggers were ablated in all. After average 1.5 procedures, the success rates were 28 (62%), 41 (62%), and 56 (85%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (log-rank P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PAF and severe LA scarring, PVAI+ ablation of non-PV triggers is associated with significantly better long-term outcome than PVAI alone or PVAI+ scar homogenization.

Left Atrial Appendage Isolation in Patients With Longstanding Persistent AF Undergoing Catheter Ablation: BELIEF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Longstanding persistent (LSP) atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most challenging type of AF. In addition to pulmonary vein isolation, substrate modification and triggers ablation have been reported to improve freedom from AF in patients with LSPAF. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether the empirical electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage (LAA) could improve success at follow-up. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized study assessing the effectiveness of empirical electrical left atrial appendage isolation for the treatment of LSPAF. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo empirical electrical left atrial appendage isolation along with extensive ablation (group 1; n = 85) or extensive ablation alone (group 2; n = 88). Recurrence of atrial arrhythmias was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included cardiac-related hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and stroke at follow-up. RESULTS: Major clinical characteristics were not different between the 2 groups. At 12-month follow-up, 48 (56%) patients in group 1 and 25 (28%) in group 2 were recurrence free after a single procedure (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence with standard ablation: 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3 to 2.9; log-rank p = 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, and left atrial size, standard ablation was predictive of recurrence (HR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.29 to 3.81; p = 0.004). During repeat procedures, empirical electrical left atrial appendage isolation was performed in all patients. After an average of 1.3 procedures, cumulative success at 24-month follow-up was reported in 65 (76%) in group 1 and in 49 (56%) in group 2 (unadjusted HR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.8; log-rank p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study showed that both after a single procedure and after redo procedures in patients with LSPAF, empirical electrical isolation of the LAA improved long-term freedom from atrial arrhythmias without increasing complications. (Effect of Empirical Left Atrial Appendage Isolation on Long-term Procedure Outcome in Patients With Persistent or Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter Ablation [BELIEF]; NCT01362738).

Vdrive Evaluation of Remote Steering and Testing in Lasso Electrophysiology Procedures Study: The VERSATILE Study in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Circular mapping catheters (CMC) are an essential tool in most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. The Vdrive™ with V-Loop™ system enables a physician to remotely manipulate a CMC during electrophysiology studies. Our aim was to compare the clinical performance of the system to conventional CMC navigation according to efficiency and safety endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 120 patients scheduled to undergo a CMC study followed by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were included. Treatment allocation was randomized 2:1, remote navigation:manual navigation. The primary effectiveness endpoint was assessed based on both successful navigation to the targeted pulmonary vein (PV) and successful recording of PV electrograms. All PVs were treated independently within and between patients. The primary safety endpoint was assessed based on the occurrence of major adverse events (MAEs) through seven days after the study procedure. Primary effectiveness endpoints were achieved in 295/302 PVs in the Vdrive arm (97.7%) and 167/167 PVs in the manual arm (100%). Effectiveness analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0405; δ = -0.05) per the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for PV correlation. Five MAEs related to the ablation procedure occurred (three in the Vdrive arm-3.9%; two in the manual arm-2.33%). No device-related MAEs were observed; safety analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0441; δ = 0.07) per the normal Z test. CONCLUSION: Remote navigation of a CMC is equivalent to manual in PVI in terms of safety and effectiveness. This allows for single-operator procedures in conjunction with a magnetically guided ablation catheter.