Cryoballoon Ablation for Persistent and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Procedural Differences and Results from the Spanish Registry (RECABA).

Introduction: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) has become a standard treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PaAF) but limited data is available for outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Methods: We analyzed the first 944 patients included in the Spanish Prospective Multi-center Observation Post-market Registry to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing CBA for PeAF versus PaAF. Results: A total of 944 patients (57.8 ± 10.4 years; 70.1% male) with AF (27.9% persistent) were prospectively included from 25 centers. PeAF patients were more likely to have structural heart disease (67.7 vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) and left atrium dilation (72.6 vs. 43.3%; p < 0.001). CBA of PeAF was less likely to be performed under general anesthesia (10.7 vs. 22.2%; p < 0.001), with an arterial line (32.2 vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001) and assisted transeptal puncture (11.9 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.025). During an application, PeAF patients had a longer time to −30 °C (35.91 ± 14.20 vs. 34.93 ± 12.87 s; p = 0.021) and a colder balloon nadir temperature during vein isolation (−35.04 ± 9.58 vs. −33.61 ± 10.32 °C; p = 0.004), but received fewer bonus freeze applications (30.7 vs. 41.1%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in acute pulmonary vein isolation and procedure-related complications. Overall, 76.7% of patients were free from AF recurrences at 15-month follow-up (78.9% in PaAF vs. 70.9% in PeAF; p = 0.09). Conclusions: Patients with PeAF have a more diseased substrate, and CBA procedures performed in such patients were more simplified, although longer/colder freeze applications were often applied. The acute efficacy/safety profile of CBA was similar between PaAF and PeAF patients, but long-term results were better in PaAF patients.

Nonfluoroscopic Catheter Ablation. Results From a Prospective Multicenter Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation is feasible in most procedures. The aim of our registry was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a zero-fluoroscopic approach to catheter ablation in several Spanish centers. METHODS: Eleven centers prospectively included a minimum of 20 patients. Patients with an arrhythmic substrate deemed suitable by the operator for a zero-fluoroscopic approach throughout the procedure were recruited. Patients with intracardiac devices were not included. Attending electrophysiologists, fellows, and resident physicians participated in each procedure, as in usual care. RESULTS: The study included 247 patients. Ablation was performed in 235 patients (95.2%). In 2 patients, who were not included in the analysis, fluoroscopy was performed as the first-line treatment. The arrhythmic substrate was located in the right chambers in most of the procedures (231 of 233 [99.15%]). Fluoroscopy was used in 24 procedures (10.3%). Catheter ablation was successful in 96.4% of the procedures and severe complications occurred in 2 patients (0.85%). Two variables were related to the need for fluoroscopy: the performing center (minimum 0% vs maximum 30.3%; P=.001) and procedural failure (13% vs 2.4%; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish multicenter registry reveals that a zero-fluoroscopic approach is feasible in most right-sided catheter ablation procedures. Randomized trials are necessary to confirm the safety of this approach. The need for fluoroscopy was related to procedural failure, with significant differences among performing centers.

Diagnostic Approach to Unexplained Cardiac Arrest (from the FIVI-Gen Study).

Unexplained cardiac arrest (UCA) can be caused by low-penetrance genetic disorders. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to assess the usefulness of a new diagnostic protocol: Thirty-five patients were recruited from 9 Spanish centers. Electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and coronary catheterization were used to rule out electrical or structural heart disease in all subjects. Patients underwent pharmacologic tests with epinephrine and flecainide, followed by assessment of family members using electrocardiogram and echocardiogram, and next-generation genetic sequencing to analyze 126 genes if all the other test results were negative. A firm diagnosis of channelopathy required phenotypic proof of the condition in unmasking tests, the presence of a pathogenic variant consistent with the phenotype observed, and/or co-segregation of the mutation found in a family member's phenotype. A firm diagnosis was made in 18 cases. The diagnoses were 7 Brugada syndrome, 5 catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, 3 long QT syndrome, 2 early repolarization syndrome, and 1 short QT syndrome. Pharmacologic testing was the most frequent method of diagnosis. In 5 cases, the diagnosis was made based on positive genetic testing without phenotypic alterations. In conclusion, this sequential diagnostic protocol allows diagnoses to be made in approximately half of the UCA cases. These diagnoses are low clinical penetrance channelopathies. If interpreted carefully, genetic tests can be a useful tool for diagnosing UCA without a phenotype.

Ablación con catéter no guiada por fluoroscopia. Resultados de un registro prospectivo multicéntrico / Nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation. results from a prospective multicenter registry

Introducción y objetivos: La ablación con catéter sin guía fluoroscópica es factible en la mayoría de los casos. El objetivo de nuestro registro es evaluar la factibilidad y la seguridad de la ablación no guiada por fluoroscopia en varios centros españoles. Métodos: Once hospitales incluyeron prospectivamente a, al menos, 20 pacientes afectados de un sustrato arrítmico cuyo procedimiento de ablación, a juicio de cada operador, se podía abordar sin fluoroscopia durante todo el procedimiento. No se incluyó a pacientes portadores de dispositivos intracardiacos. Electrofisiólogos de plantilla, becarios y residentes participaron en cada procedimiento de forma habitual. Resultados: Se incluyó a un total de 247 pacientes (n = 247). Se realizó ablación en 235 casos (95,2%), y en 2 casos que no se incluyeron en el análisis la fluoroscopia se utilizó como primera intención. En el 99,15% (231/233) de los procedimientos analizados el sustrato arrítmico abordado se localizaba en cavidades derechas. Se requirió fluoroscopia en 24 (10,3%), se obtuvo éxito en el 96,4% de los procedimientos y hubo complicaciones graves en 2 pacientes (0,85%). Las variables relacionadas con la necesidad de fluoroscopia fueron el centro realizador (máximo, 33,3%; mínimo, 0; p = 0,001) y el fracaso del procedimiento (el 13 frente al 2,4%; p < 0,05). Conclusiones: El registro multicéntrico muestra que la ablación sin escopia de sustratos localizados en cavidades derechas es factible en la mayoría de los procedimientos. Se necesitan estudios aleatorizados para confirmar su seguridad. La necesidad de fluoroscopia es mayor en los procedimientos sin éxito y es variable en los centros realizadores (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation is feasible in most procedures. The aim of our registry was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a zero-fluoroscopic approach to catheter ablation in several Spanish centers. Methods: Eleven centers prospectively included a minimum of 20 patients. Patients with an arrhythmic substrate deemed suitable by the operator for a zero-fluoroscopic approach throughout the procedure were recruited. Patients with intracardiac devices were not included. Attending electrophysiologists, fellows, and resident physicians participated in each procedure, as in usual care. Results: The study included 247 patients. Ablation was performed in 235 patients (95.2%). In 2 patients, who were not included in the analysis, fluoroscopy was performed as the first-line treatment. The arrhythmic substrate was located in the right chambers in most of the procedures (231 of 233 [99.15%]). Fluoroscopy was used in 24 procedures (10.3%). Catheter ablation was successful in 96.4% of the procedures and severe complications occurred in 2 patients (0.85%). Two variables were related to the need for fluoroscopy: the performing center (minimum 0% vs maximum 30.3%; P = .001) and procedural failure (13% vs 2.4%; P < .05). Conclusions: The Spanish multicenter registry reveals that a zero-fluoroscopic approach is feasible in most right-sided catheter ablation procedures. Randomized trials are necessary to confirm the safety of this approach. The need for fluoroscopy was related to procedural failure, with significant differences among performing centers (AU)