Dual-energy lattice-tip ablation system for persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial.

Clinical outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) are suboptimal due, in part, to challenges in achieving durable lesions. Although focal point-by-point ablation allows for the creation of any required lesion set, this strategy necessitates the generation of contiguous lesions without gaps. A large-tip catheter, capable of creating wide-footprint ablation lesions, may increase ablation effectiveness and efficiency. In a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial, 420 patients with persistent AF underwent ablation using a large-tip catheter with dual pulsed field and radiofrequency energies versus ablation using a conventional radiofrequency ablation system. The primary composite effectiveness endpoint was evaluated through 1 year and included freedom from acute procedural failure and repeat ablation at any time, plus arrhythmia recurrence, drug initiation or escalation or cardioversion after a 3-month blanking period. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from a composite of serious procedure-related or device-related adverse events. The primary effectiveness endpoint was observed for 73.8% and 65.8% of patients in the investigational and control arms, respectively (P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). Major procedural or device-related complications occurred in three patients in the investigational arm and in two patients in the control arm (P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). In a secondary analysis, procedural times were shorter in the investigational arm as compared to the control arm (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate non-inferior safety and effectiveness of the dual-energy catheter for the treatment of persistent AF. Future large-scale studies are needed to gather real-world evidence on the impact of the focal dual-energy lattice catheter on the broader population of patients with AF. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05120193 .

Catheter-Based Electroporation: A Novel Technique for Catheter Ablation of Cardiac Arrhythmias.

Catheter ablation of arrhythmias is now standard of care in invasive electrophysiology. Current ablation strategies are based on the use of thermal energy. With continuous efforts to optimize thermal energy delivery, effectiveness has greatly improved; however, safety concerns persist. This review focuses on a novel ablation technology, irreversible electroporation (IRE), also known as pulsed-field ablation which may be a safer alternative for arrhythmia management. Pulsed-field ablation is thought to be a nonthermal ablation that applies short-duration high-voltage electrical fields to ablate myocardial tissue with high selectivity and durability while sparing important neighboring structures such as the esophagus and phrenic nerves. There are multiple ongoing studies investigating the potential superior outcomes of IRE compared to radiofrequency ablation in treating patients with atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. In this review, we describe the current evidence of preclinical and clinical trials that have shown promising results of catheter-based IRE.

Left atrial volume by cardiac CTA prior to catheter ablation: comparison to echocardiography and association with recurrent atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Left atrial volume index (LAVI) by echocardiography can be challenging and its accuracy is highly dependent on image quality. Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) can overcome echocardiographic LAVI measurement challenges; however, data are limited. Therefore, we evaluated the reproducibility of LAVI by CTA, its correlation to echocardiography, and its association with recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in this retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent CTA prior to PVI. LAVI was measured by CTA and echocardiography using the area length method. RESULTS: 74 patients had echocardiography and CTA within 6 months and were included in this study. The interobserver variability of LAVI measured by CTA was low (1.2%). CTA correlated with echocardiography but found larger LAVI values by a factor of 1.6. Also, LAVI cut off of ≥ 55 ml/m2 measured by CTA correlated with recurrent AF after PVI (adjusted Odds Ratio 3.47, p = 0.033).

Acute pericarditis after atrial fibrillation ablation: Incidence, characteristics, and risk factors.

Background: Little is known about the incidence and risk factors for the development of acute pericarditis after ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to describe the occurrence of and associations with suspected acute pericarditis after AF ablation. Methods: All patients undergoing AF ablation in our center were enrolled in a prospectively maintained registry. Suspected acute pericarditis was defined as pericardial chest pain treated with disease specific anti-inflammatories within 3 months of AF ablation. Results: Among 2215 patients with AF ablations between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, 226 (10.2%) had suspected acute pericarditis. Treatments included colchicine in 149 patients (65.9%), prednisone in 66 (29.2%), and high-dose ibuprofen in 43 (19.0%). Multiple anti-inflammatory therapies were used in 57 patients (25%). At baseline, a lower CHADS2VASc score and a higher body mass index were associated with pericarditis, whereas older patients were less likely to have pericarditis. With multivariable adjustment, age was associated with suspected acute pericarditis (odds ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.97; P <.0001). Among patients with suspected pericarditis, postprocedure pericardial effusion was present in 9.3% and pericarditis electrocardiographic changes in 19.5%. Conclusion: Suspected acute pericarditis is common after AF ablation and is associated with a younger age. Systematic assessments for acute pericarditis after AF ablation should be considered.

Hybrid Convergent Procedure for the Treatment of Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results of CONVERGE Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The limited effectiveness of endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment led to the development of a minimally invasive epicardial/endocardial ablation approach (Hybrid Convergent) to achieve a more comprehensive lesion set with durable transmural lesions. The multicenter randomized controlled CONVERGE trial (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF) evaluated the safety of Hybrid Convergent and compared its effectiveness to CA for persistent and long-standing persistent AF treatment. METHODS: One-hundred fifty-three patients were randomized 2:1 to Hybrid Convergent versus CA. Primary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia absent new/increased dosage of previously failed/intolerant class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs through 12 months. Primary safety was major adverse events through 30 days. CONVERGE permitted left atrium size up to 6 cm and imposed no limits on AF duration, making it the only ablation trial to substantially include long-standing persistent-AF, that is, 42% patients with long-standing persistent-AF. RESULTS: Of 149 evaluable patients at 12 months, primary effectiveness was achieved in 67.7% (67/99) patients with Hybrid Convergent and 50.0% (25/50) with CA (P=0.036) on/off previously failed antiarrhythmic drugs and in 53.5% (53/99) versus 32.0% (16/50; P=0.0128) respectively off antiarrhythmic drugs. At 18 months using 7-day Holter, 74.0% (53/72) Hybrid Convergent and 55% (23/42) CA patients experienced ≥90% AF burden reduction. A total of 2.9% (3/102) patients had primary safety events within 7 days, and 4.9% (5/102) between 8 and 30 days postprocedure. No deaths, cardiac perforations, or atrioesophageal fistulas occurred. All but one primary safety event resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The Hybrid Convergent procedure has superior effectiveness compared to the CA for the treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01984346.

Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Management of Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and its management may be organized into risk stratification and/or treatment of heart failure, stroke prevention, and symptom control. At the core of symptom control, treatment is tailored to either allow AF continue with controlled heart rates, so-called rate control, versus restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm or rhythm control. Rate control strategies mainly use rate-modulating medications, whereas rhythm control treatment includes therapy aimed at restoring sinus rhythm, including pharmacologic and direct current cardioversion, as well as maintenance of sinus rhythm, including antiarrhythmic medications and ablation therapy.