P-Wave Morphology From Common Nonpulmonary Vein Trigger Sites Following Pulmonary Vein and Posterior Wall Isolation.

BACKGROUND: Non-pulmonary vein (PV) triggers are increasingly targeted during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. P-wave morphology (PWM) can be useful because point mapping of AF triggers is challenging. The impact of prior ablation on PWM is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report PWM before and after left atrial (LA) ablation and construct a P-wave algorithm of common non-PV trigger locations. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed the paced PWM of 30 patients with persistent AF undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and posterior wall isolation (PWI). Pace mapping was performed at the SVC, crista terminalis, inferior tricuspid annulus, coronary sinus ostium, left septum, left atrial appendage, Ligament of Marshall, and inferoposterior LA. The PWM was reported before PVI, then blinded comparisons were made post-PVI and post-PVI + PWI. A P-wave algorithm was constructed. RESULTS: A total of 8,352 paced P waves were prospectively recorded. No significant changes in the PWM were seen post-PVI alone in 2,775 of 2,784 (99.7%) and post-PWI in 2,715 of 2,784 (97.5%). Changes in PWM were predominantly at the IPLA (53 P waves) with a positive P-wave in leads V2 to V6 before biphasic post-PWI, LA appendage (9 P waves), coronary sinus ostium (6 P waves), and ligament of Marshall (3 P waves). A PWM algorithm was created before PVI and accurately predicted the location in 93% post-PVI + PWI. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal change was observed in PWM post-PV and PWI aside from the IPLA location. A P-wave algorithm created before and applied after PVI + PWI provided an accuracy of 93%. PWM provides a reliable tool to guide the localization of common non-PV trigger sites even after PV and PWI.

Arrhythmia profile and ablation-outcome in elderly women with atrial fibrillation undergoing first catheter ablation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the arrhythmia profile and ablation outcome in women with atrial fibrillation (AF) aged ≥75 years. METHODS: A total of 573 consecutive female patients undergoing first AF ablation were classified into group 1: ≥75 years (n = 221) and group 2: < 75 years (n = 352). Isolation of PVs, posterior wall and superior vena cava was performed in all. Non-PV triggers from other areas were ablated based on operator's discretion. RESULTS: Group 1 had higher prevalence of hypertension (154 (69.7%) vs. 188 (53.4%), p < .001) and non-paroxysmal AF (136 (61.5%) vs. 126 (35.8%), p < .001). Non-PV triggers were detected in 194 (87.8%) patients from group 1 and 143 (40.6%) from group 2 (p < .001) and were ablated in 152 (68.8%) and 114 (32.4%) from group 1 and 2 respectively. Remaining patients (group 1: 69/221 and group 2: 238/352) received no additional ablation. At 4 years, 109 (49.3%) and 185 (52.6%) from group 1 and 2, respectively, were arrhythmia-free, p = .69. When stratified by ablation-strategy, success-rate was similar across groups in patients receiving non-PV trigger ablation (96 (63.2%) in group 1 and 76 (66.7%) in group 2, p = .61), whereas it was significantly lower in group 1 patients not receiving additional ablation compared to those from group 2 (13 (18.8%) vs. 109 (45.8%), p < .001). CONCLUSION: Non-paroxysmal AF was more common in women aged ≥75 years. Furthermore, significantly higher number of non-PV triggers were detected in elderly women and ablation of those provided similar ablation success as that in women aged < 75 years.

Predictors of recurrent atrial fibrillation following catheter ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a complex and multi-factorial rhythm disorder. Catheter ablation is widely used for the management of AF. However, it is limited by relapse of the arrhythmia necessitating repeat procedures. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to discuss the predictors of post-ablation recurrent AF including age, gender, genetic predisposition, AF type and duration, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, echocardiographic parameters of heart chambers, left atrial fibrosis and ablation strategies and targets. An extensive literature search was undertaken on PubMed and Google Scholar to obtain full texts of relevant AF-related articles. EXPERT OPINION: Maintenance of stable sinus rhythm is the main intended outcome of AF ablation. Therefore, it is very crucial to identify the risk factors that may influence the ablation success. Most of these predictors such as comorbidities, ablation strategy and targets and lifestyle factors are either reversible or modifiable. Thus, not only the awareness of these known risk factors by both patients and their physicians but also future research to identify the unknown predictors are critical to optimize care in this multi-faceted morbidity.

Procedural findings and ablation outcome in patients with atrial fibrillation referred after two or more failed catheter ablations.

INTRODUCTION: This study reports the procedural findings and ablation outcome in AF patients referred after ≥2 failed PV isolation (PVI). METHODS: Three hundred and five consecutive AF patients referred after ≥2 PVI were included in the analysis. High-dose isoproterenol challenge was used to identify PV reconnection and non-PV triggers; the latter were ablated based on the operator's discretion during the index procedure. At the repeat procedure, non-PV triggers were ablated in all. Empirical isolation of LA appendage (LAA) and coronary sinus (CS) was performed if the PVs were silent and no non-PV triggers were detected. RESULTS: PV reconnection was detected in 226 and non-PV triggers were identified or empirically isolated in 285 patients during the index procedure. At follow-up, 182 (60%) patients were recurrence-free off-AAD; the success rate with and without non-PV ablation was 81% vs. 8% (P < 0.0001). 104 patients underwent repeat procedure with non-PV trigger ablation in all. At 1 year, 90% were arrhythmia free off-AAD in non-PV ablation group, and 72% who did not receive non-PV triggers ablation at the index procedure (P = 0.035). The success rate of empirical LAA and CS isolation was 78.5% and 82% after the index and repeat procedure, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients experiencing AF recurrence after multiple failed PVI, despite PV reconnection, non-PV triggers were found to be responsible for AF maintenance in the majority and ablating those triggers increased ablation success. Additionally, in the presence of permanent PVI and no non-PV triggers on isoproterenol, empirical isolation of LAA and CS provided high rate of arrhythmia-free survival.

Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: More Than a Decade of Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: We report the outcome of pulmonary vein (PV) antrum isolation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients over more than a decade of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 513 paroxysmal AF patients (age 54±11 years, 73% males) undergoing catheter ablation at our institutions were included in this analysis. PV antrum isolation extended to the posterior wall between PVs plus empirical isolation of the superior vena cava was performed in all. Non-PV triggers were targeted during repeat procedure(s). Follow-up was performed quarterly for the first year and every 6 to 9 months thereafter. The outcome of this study was freedom from recurrent AF/atrial tachycardia. At 12 years, single-procedure arrhythmia-free survival was achieved in 58.7% of patients. Overall, the rate of recurrent arrhythmia (AF/atrial tachycardia) was 21% at 1 year, 11% between 1 and 3 years, 4% between 3 and 6 years, and 5.3% between 6 and 12 years. Repeat procedure was performed in 74% of patients. Reconnection in the PV antrum was found in 31% of patients after a single procedure and in no patients after 2 procedures. Non-PV triggers were found and targeted in all patients presenting with recurrent arrhythmia after ≥2 procedures. At 12 years, after multiple procedures, freedom from recurrent AF/atrial tachycardia was achieved in 87%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing extended PV antrum isolation, the rate of late recurrence is lower than what previously reported with segmental or less extensive antral isolation. However, over more than a decade of follow-up, nearly 14% of patients developed recurrence because of new non-PV triggers.

Impact of Rotor Ablation in Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Results From the Randomized OASIS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonrandomized studies have reported focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation to be superior to pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) for persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare efficacy of FIRM ablation with or without PVAI versus PVAI plus non-PV trigger ablation in randomized persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients. METHODS: Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing first ablation were randomized to FIRM only (group 1), FIRM + PVAI (group 2) or PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger ablation (group 3). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachycardia/AF. The secondary endpoint was acute procedural success, defined as AF termination, ≥10% slowing, or organization into atrial tachycardia. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were enrolled at 3 centers; 29 in group 1 and 42 each in groups 2 and 3. Group 1 enrollment was terminated early for futility. Focal drivers or rotors were detected in all group 1 and 2 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group 3 versus groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). In groups 1 and 2, acute success after rotor-only ablation was achieved in 12 patients (41%) and 11 (26%), respectively. After 12 ± 7 months' follow-up, 4 patients (14%), 22 (52.4%), and 32 (76%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were AF/atrial tachycardia-free while off antiarrhythmic drugs (log-rank p < 0.0001). Group 3 patients experienced higher success compared with groups 1 (p < 0.001) and 2 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes were poor with rotor-only ablation. PVAI + rotor ablation had significantly longer procedure time and lower efficacy than PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger-ablation. (Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies in Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation [OASIS]; NCT02533843).

Impact of Uncontrolled Hypertension on Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Outcome.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of hypertension on the outcome of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a well-known independent risk factor for incident AF. METHODS: A total of 531 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation were enrolled in this study and divided into 3 groups: patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite medical treatment (group I, n = 160), patients with controlled hypertension (group II, n = 192), and patients without hypertension (group III, n = 179). Pulmonary vein (PV) antrum and posterior wall isolation was always performed, and non-PV triggers were identified during isoproterenol infusion. All patients underwent extensive follow-up. RESULTS: Three groups differed in terms of left atrial (LA) size, non-PV triggers, and moderate/severe LA scar. Non-PV triggers were present in 94 (58.8%), 64 (33.3%), and 50 (27.9%) patients in groups I, II, and III, respectively (p < 0.001). After 19 ± 7.7 months of follow-up, 65 (40.6%), 54 (28.1%), and 46 (25.7%) patients in groups I, II, and III had recurrences (log-rank test, p = 0.003). Among patients in group I who underwent additional non-PV trigger ablation, freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia was 69.8%, which was similar to groups II and III procedural success (log-rank p = 0.7). After adjusting for confounders, uncontrolled hypertension (group I) (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.52, p = 0.045), non-PV triggers (HR: 1.85, p < 0.001), and nonparoxysmal AF (HR: 1.64, p = 0.002) demonstrated significant association with arrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Controlled hypertension does not affect the AF ablation outcome when compared with patients without hypertension. By contrast, uncontrolled hypertension confers higher AF recurrence risk and requires more extensive ablation.