Electrogram dispersion-guided driver ablation adjunctive to high-quality pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation of varying durations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of driver mechanism and the effect of electrogram dispersion-guided driver mapping and ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF) at different stages of progression. METHODS: A total of 256 consecutive patients with AF who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus driver ablation or conventional ablation were divided into three groups: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF; group A, n = 51); persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF; group B, n = 38); and long standing-persistent atrial fibrillation (LS-PsAF; group C, n = 39). PVI was performed with the guidance of the ablation index. The electrogram dispersion was analyzed for driver mapping. RESULTS: The most prominent driver regions were at roof (28.0%), posterior wall (17.6%), and bottom (21.3%). From patients with PAF to those with PsAF and LS-PsAF: the complexity of extra-pulmonary vein (PV) drivers including distribution, mean number, and area of dispersion region increased (P < .001). Patients who underwent driver ablation vs conventional ablation had higher procedural AF termination rate (76.6% vs 28.1%; P < .001). With AF progression, the termination rate gradually decreased from group A to group C, and the role of PVI in AF termination was also gradually weakened from group A to group C (39.6%, 7.4%, and 4.3%; P < .001) in patients with driver ablation. At the end of the follow-up, the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance was higher in patients with driver ablation than those with conventional ablation (89.1% vs 70.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The formation of extra-PV drivers provides an important mechanism for AF maintenance with their complexity increasing with AF progression. Electrogram dispersion-guided driver ablation appears to be an efficient adjunctive approach to PVI for AF treatment.

Extra pulmonary vein driver mapping and ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation by electrogram dispersion analysis.

BACKGROUND: The adjunctive approach is still unknown for atrial fibrillation (AF), which cannot be terminated after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We hypothesized that the driver ablation plus PVI was superior to PVI alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 98 patients with paroxysmal AF were enrolled in this study and were divided into two groups, with one group undergoing PVI (n = 49) and the other group undergoing PVI + driver ablation (n = 49). The driver regions were defined as clusters of bipolar electrograms that displayed spatial dispersion spread over mean AF cycle length at a minimum of three adjacent bipolars of a PentaRay catheter. During the procedure, the most prominent driver regions before PVI were the roof (n = 27; 55.1%), PV antrum (n = 23; 46.9%), and the inferoposterior wall (n = 11; 22.4%). PVI can eliminate all drivers at PV antrum, but only terminate 30.4% of AF in the driver group. The AF termination rate in the driver ablation group was significantly higher than that in conventional ablation (93.9% vs 40.6%; P < 0.001). The rate of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes by a single procedure at 6 months was significantly higher in the driver group than in the conventional group (91.6% vs 72.4%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The present method is effective for AF driver identification. It guided ablation adjunctive to PVI increasing the rate of AF termination and improving the outcomes in patients with paroxysmal AF.

Atrial Substrate Modification in Atrial Fibrillation: Targeting GP or CFAE? Evidence from Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Several clinically relevant outcomes post atrial substrate modification in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have not been systematically analyzed among published studies on adjunctive cardiac ganglionated plexi (GP) or complex fractionated atrial electograms (CFAE) ablation vs. pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone. Out of 176 reports identified, the present meta-analysis included 14 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (1613 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. Addition of GP ablation to PVI significantly increased freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia in short- (OR: 1.72; P = 0.003) and long-term (OR: 2.0, P = 0.0006) follow-up, while adjunctive CFAE ablation did not after one or repeat procedure (P<0.05). The percentage of atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter (AT/AFL) after one procedure was higher for CFAE than GP ablation. In sub-analysis of non-paroxysmal AF, relative to PVI alone, adjunctive GP but not CFAE ablation significantly increased sinus rhythm maintenance (OR: 1.88, P = 0.01; and OR:1.24, P = 0.18, respectively). Meta regression analysis of the 14 studies indicated that sample size was significant source of heterogeneity either in outcomes after one or repeat procedure. In conclusion, in patients with AF, adjunctive GP but not CFAE ablation appeared to significantly add to the beneficial effects on sinus rhythm maintenance of PVI ablation alone; and CFAE ablation was associated with higher incidence of subsequent AT/AFL.

Benefits and risks of additional ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms for patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of additional complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. METHODS: Trials were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database, reviews, and reference lists of relevant papers. The primary end point was the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias after a single ablation. RESULTS: We meta-analyzed 11 studies (total, n=983) using random-effects model to compare PVI (n=478) with PVI plus CFAE ablation (PVI+CFAE) (n=505). Additional CFAE ablation reduced recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single procedure (pooled RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61, 0.88; P=0.0007) at ≥ 3-month follow-up. There was no evidence of heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=33%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that additional CFAE ablation reduced rates of recurrence in nonparoxysmal AF (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47, 0.99; P=0.05), whereas had no effect on patients with paroxysmal AF (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.59, 1.06; P=0.12). Eight studies reported results of post-procedure ATs. The addition of CFAE ablation increased the rate of post-procedure ATs (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.02, 3.07; P=0.04). Additional CFAE ablation significantly increased mean procedural times (245.4+75.7 vs. 189.5+62.3 min, P<0.001), mean fluoroscopy (72.1+25.6 vs. 59.5+19.3 min, P<0.001), and mean RF energy application times (75.3+38.6 vs. 53.2+27.5 min, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive CFAE ablation could provide additional benefit in terms of reducing recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia for patients with nonparoxysmal AF but not for patients with paroxysmal AF after a single procedure with or without antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The main risk of adjunctive CFAE ablation is the increasing rate of untraceable postablation ATs.