Impact of obesity on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Patient characteristics, procedural complications, outcomes, and quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is a well-known risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to evaluate the effect of baseline obesity on procedural complications, AF recurrence, and symptoms following catheter ablation (CA). METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation (2013-2021) at our center were enrolled in a prospective registry. The study included all consecutive patients with available data on body mass index (BMI). Primary endpoint was AF recurrence based on electrocardiographic documentation. Patients were categorized into five groups according to their baseline BMI. Patients survey at baseline and at follow-up were used to calculate AF symptom severity score (AFSS) as well as AF burden (mean of AF duration score and AF frequency score; scale 0: no AF to 10: continuous and 9 frequencies/durations in between). Patients were scheduled for follow-up visits with 12-lead electrocardiogram at 3, 6, and 12 months after ablation, and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: A total of 5841 patients were included (17% normal weight, 34% overweight, 27% Class I, 13% Class II, and 9% Class III obesity). Major procedural complications were low (1.5%) among all BMI subgroups. At 3 years AF recurrence was the highest in Class III obesity patients (48%) followed by Class II (43%), whereas Class I, normal, and overweight had similar results with lower recurrence (35%). In multivariable analyses, Class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40) was independently associated with increased risk for AF recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.30; confidence interval, 1.06-1.60; p = .01), whereas other groups had similar risk in comparison to normal weight. Baseline AFSS was lowest in normal weight, and highest in Obesity-III, median (interquartile range) 10 (5-16) versus 15 (10-21). In all groups, CA resulted in a significant improvement in their AFSS with a similar magnitude among the groups. At follow-up, AF burden was minimal and did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: AF ablation is safe with a low complication rate across all BMI groups. Morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40) was significantly associated with reduced AF ablation success. However, ablation resulted in improvement in QoL including reduction of the AFSS, and AF burden regardless of BMI.

Mechanical Circulatory Support During Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia: Indications and Options.

Mapping of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) in structural heart disease is fundamentally driven by identifying the critical isthmus of conduction that supports re-entry in and around myocardial scar. Mapping can be performed using activation and entrainment techniques during VT, or by substrate mapping performed in stable sinus or paced rhythm. Activation and entrainment mapping requires the patient to be in continuous VT, which may not be haemodynamically tolerated, or, if tolerated, may lead to adverse sequelae related to impaired end organ perfusion. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may facilitate haemodynamic stability and preserve end organ perfusion during sustained VT to permit mapping for long periods. Available options for haemodynamic support include an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart left atrial to femoral artery bypass system (CardiacAssist Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA), Impella left ventricle (LV) to aorta flow-assist system (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); the bypass and assist devices provide far better augmentation of cardiac output than IABP. MCS has potential key advantages including maintenance of vital organ perfusion, reduction of intra-cardiac filling pressures, reduction of LV volumes, wall stress, and myocardial consumption of oxygen, and improvement of coronary perfusion during prolonged periods of VT induction and/or mapping. Observational studies show MCS allows for longer duration of mapping, and increased likelihood of VT termination, without an increased risk of peri-procedural mortality or VT recurrence in follow-up, despite being used in a significantly sicker cohort of patients. However, MCS has increased risk of complications related to vascular access, bleeding, thromboembolic risk, mapping system interference, increase procedural complexity and increased cost. Acute haemodynamic decompensation occurs in ∼11% of patients undergoing VT ablation, and is associated with increased mortality. Prospectively identifying patients at risk of acute haemodynamic decompensation in the peri-procedural period may allow prophylactic MCS. Although observational studies of MCS in patients at high risk of haemodynamic decompensation are encouraging, its benefit needs to be proven in randomised trials. This review will summarise the indication for MCS, forms of MCS, procedural outcomes, complications and utility of MCS during VT ablation.