EsophAguS Deviation During RadiofrequencY Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The EASY AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Injury to the esophagus has been reported in a high percentage of patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the incidence of esophageal injury in patients undergoing ablation of AF with and without an esophageal deviating device. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial compared the incidence of ablation-related esophageal lesions, as assessed by endoscopy, in patients undergoing AF ablation assigned to a control group (luminal esophageal temperature [LET] monitoring alone) compared with patients randomized to a deviation group (esophagus deviation device + LET). This novel deviating device uses vacuum suction and mechanical deflection to deviate a segment of the esophagus, including the trailing edge. RESULTS: The data safety and monitoring board recommended stopping the study early after randomizing 120 patients due to deviating device efficacy. The primary study endpoint, ablation injury to the esophageal mucosa, was significantly less in the deviation group (5.7%) in comparison to the control group (35.4%; P < 0.0001). Control patients had a significantly higher severity and greater number of ablation lesions per patient. There was no adverse event assigned to the device. By multivariable analysis, the only feature associated with reduced esophageal lesions was randomization to deviating device (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001). Among control subjects, there was no difference in esophageal lesions with high power/short duration (31.8%) vs other radiofrequency techniques (37.2%; P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an esophageal deviating device resulted in a significant reduction in ablation-related esophageal lesions without any adverse events.

Effects of Atrioventricular Optimization on Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results of the SMART-CRT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of atrioventricular optimization (AVO) to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes remains controversial. Previous post hoc analyses of a multicenter trial showed that measures of electrical dyssynchrony (right ventricular-left ventricular [LV] or LV electrical delay durations) are associated with patients who benefit from AVO. METHODS: This was a global, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial of de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implant patients with an right ventricular-LV duration ≥70 ms to determine whether AVO results in greater reverse remodeling. Patients were randomized 1:1 for either an AVO algorithm (SmartDelay) that determines atrioventricular delay and pacing chamber, biventricular or LV only, or a fixed atrioventricular delay of 120 ms with biventricular pacing. Paired echocardiograms performed at baseline and 6 months were evaluated. The primary end point was echocardiographic cardiac resynchronization therapy response, defined dichotomously as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients (n=120 women) were randomized and had completed 6 months of follow-up. The echocardiographic cardiac resynchronization therapy response rate did not statistically differ between the groups (SmartDelay, 74.8%; fixed, 67.7%; P=0.17). Analyses of prespecified secondary end points demonstrated significant improvements in the absolute (median: SmartDelay, -41.0 mL; fixed, -33.0 mL; P=0.01) and relative change in LV end-systolic volume (SmartDelay, -38.3%; fixed, -27.8%; P=0.03) for patients with SmartDelay optimization. Similar results were observed for the relative improvement in LV ejection fraction (SmartDelay, 46.7%; fixed, 32.1%; P=0.050); absolute improvement in LV ejection fraction trended to be higher with SmartDelay (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of reverse remodeling parameters demonstrated that AVO via SmartDelay, relative to the nonoptimized fixed atrioventricular delay comparator group, improved absolute and relative changes in LV function in patients with longer right ventricular-LV duration. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03089281.

Left Ventricular Enlargement, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Efficacy, and Impact of MultiPoint Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing results in slowly propagating paced wavefronts. We postulated that this effect might limit cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy in patients with LV enlargement using conventional biventricular pacing with single-site LV pacing, but be mitigated by LV stimulation from 2 widely spaced sites using MultiPoint pacing with wide anatomic separation (MPP-AS: ≥30 mm). We tested this hypothesis in the multicenter randomized MPP investigational device exemption trial. METHODS: Following implant, quadripolar biventricular single-site pacing was activated in all patients (n=506). From 3 to 9 months postimplant, among patients with available baseline LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) measures, 188 received biventricular single-site pacing and 43 received MPP-AS. Patients were dichotomized by median baseline LVEDV indexed to height (LVEDVIMedian). Outcomes were measured by the clinical composite score (primary efficacy end point), quality of life, LV structural remodeling (↑EF >5% and ↓ESV 10%) and heart failure event/cardiovascular death. RESULTS: LVEDVIMedian was 1.1 mL/cm. Baseline characteristics differed in patients with LVEDVI>Median versus LVEDVI≤Median. Among patients with LVEDVI>Median, biventricular single-site pacing was less efficacious compared to patients with LVEDVI≤Median (clinical composite score, 65% versus 79%). In contrast, MPP-AS programming generated greater clinical composite score response (92% versus 65%, P=0.023) and improved quality of life (-31.0±29.7 versus -15.7±22.1, P=0.038) versus biventricular single-site pacing in patients with LVEDVI>Median. Reverse remodeling trended better with MPP-AS programming. In patients with LVEDVI>Median, heart failure event rate increased following the 3-month randomization point with biventricular single-site pacing (0.0150±0.1725 in LVEDVI>Median versus -0.0190±0.0808 in LVEDVI ≤Median, P=0.012), but no heart failure event occurred in patients with MPP-AS programming between 3 and 9 months in LVEDVI>Median. All measured outcomes did not differ in patients receiving MPP-AS and biventricular single-site pacing with LVEDVI≤Median. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional biventricular single-site pacing, even with a quadripolar lead, has reduced efficacy in patients with LV enlargement. However, the greatest response rate in patients with larger hearts was observed when programmed to MPP-AS pacing.

The rationale and design of the SMART CRT trial.

AIMS: The SMART CRT study will assess the efficacy of an atrioventricular optimization algorithm to improve reverse remodeling among patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the presence of interventricular electrical delay. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SMART CRT study is a global, multicenter, prospective, randomized study of patients undergoing CRT implantation. The primary endpoint of this trial is response rate to CRT, defined as decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15% at 6 months compared to preimplant baseline. Additional prespecified analyses are: (1) clinical composite endpoint combining all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association class, and Quality of Life (using a patient global assessment instrument); (2) the individual components of the clinical composite endpoint; (3) 6-minute walk distance; (4) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; (5) LVESV as a continuous variable; and (6) absolute left-ventricular ejection fraction. Subjects with intraventricular delay ≥ 70 ms measured between the right ventricular and left ventricular pacing leads will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to have either an AV Delay and pacing chamber determined by SmartDelay™ or a Fixed AV Delay of 120 ms with biventricular pacing. Enrollment of an estimated 726 of subjects from up to 100 centers worldwide is planned to achieve 436 randomized subjects and 370 complete data sets required to power the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide important data regarding the importance of AV Delay programming in patients with prolonged interventricular delay at the pacing sites.

Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) aim to mitigate lead- and pocket-related complications seen with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare complications between the LCP cohort from the LEADLESS Pacemaker IDE Study (Leadless II) trial and a propensity score-matched real-world TVP cohort. METHODS: The multicenter LEADLESS II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Nanostim LCP (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) using structured follow-up, with serious adverse device effects independently adjudicated. TVP data were obtained from Truven Health MarketScan claims databases for patients implanted with single-chamber TVPs between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 and more than 1 year of preimplant enrollment data. Comorbidities and complications were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Short-term (≤1 months) and mid-term (>1-18 months) complications were compared between the LCP cohort and a propensity score-matched subset of the TVP cohort. RESULTS: Among 718 patients with LCPs (mean age 75.6 ± 11.9 years; 62% men) and 1436 patients with TVPs (mean age 76.1 ± 12.3 years; 63% men), patients with LCPs experienced fewer complications (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60; P < .001), including short-term (5.8% vs 9.4%; P = .01) and mid-term (0.56% vs 4.9%; P < .001) events. In the short-term time frame, patients with LCPs had more pericardial effusions (1.53% vs 0.35%; P = .005); similar rates of vascular events (1.11% vs 0.42%; P = .085), dislodgments (0.97% vs 1.39%; P = .54), and generator complications (0.70% vs 0.28%; P = .17); and no thoracic trauma compared to patients with TVPs (rate of thoracic trauma 3.27%). In short- and mid-term time frames, TVP events absent from the LCP group included lead-related, pocket-related, and infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with LCPs experienced fewer overall short- and mid-term complications, including infectious and lead- and pocket-related events, but more pericardial effusions, which were uncommon but serious.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to confirm a subgroup analysis of the prior FIX-HF-5 (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure) study showing that cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improved exercise tolerance (ET) and quality of life in patients with ejection fractions between 25% and 45%. BACKGROUND: CCM therapy for New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III and IV heart failure (HF) patients consists of nonexcitatory electrical signals delivered to the heart during the absolute refractory period. METHODS: A total of 160 patients with NYHA functional class III or IV symptoms, QRS duration <130 ms, and ejection fraction ≥25% and ≤45% were randomized to continued medical therapy (control, n = 86) or CCM (treatment, n = 74, unblinded) for 24 weeks. Peak Vo2 (primary endpoint), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, NYHA functional class, and 6-min hall walk were measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Bayesian repeated measures linear modeling was used for the primary endpoint analysis with 30% borrowing from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup. Safety was assessed by the percentage of patients free of device-related adverse events with a pre-specified lower bound of 70%. RESULTS: The difference in peak Vo2 between groups was 0.84 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.123 to 1.552) ml O2/kg/min, satisfying the primary endpoint. Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire (p < 0.001), NYHA functional class (p < 0.001), and 6-min hall walk (p = 0.02) were all better in the treatment versus control group. There were 7 device-related events, yielding a lower bound of 80% of patients free of events, satisfying the primary safety endpoint. The composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations was reduced from 10.8% to 2.9% (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: CCM is safe, improves exercise tolerance and quality of life in the specified group of HF patients, and leads to fewer HF hospitalizations. (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure; NCT01381172).

Creation and Implementation of an Outpatient Pathway for Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department Setting: Results of an Expert Panel.

Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF) is a common condition among emergency department (ED) patients in the United States. Traditionally, ED care for primary complaints related to AF focus on rate control, and patients are often admitted to an inpatient setting for further care. Inpatient care may include further telemetry monitoring and diagnostic testing, rhythm control, a search for identification of AF etiology, and stroke prophylaxis. However, many patients are eligible for safe and effective outpatient management pathways. They are widely used in Canada and other countries but less widely adopted in the United States. In this project, we convened an expert panel to create a practical framework for the process of creating, implementing, and maintaining an outpatient AF pathway for emergency physicians to assess and treat AF patients, safely reduce hospitalization rates, ensure appropriate stroke prophylaxis, and effectively transition patients to longitudinal outpatient treatment settings from the ED and/or observation unit. To support local pathway creation, the panel also reached agreement on a protocol development plan, a sample pathway, consensus recommendations for pathway components, sample pathway metrics, and a structured literature review framework using a modified Delphi technique by a technical expert panel of emergency medicine, cardiology, and other stakeholder groups.

Coronary venous angioplasty to facilitate transvenous left ventricular lead placement: A single-center 13-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Barriers to successful left ventricular lead placement within the coronary venous anatomy may include focal stenoses, thromboses, phrenic nerve stimulation, vessel tortuosity, small vessel caliber, nonexcitable tissue, and valve presence. A large series describing the utilization of coronary venous angioplasty (CVAP) for relief of these issues is absent in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We report our experience on all patients treated with CVAP in a single-center 13-year experience. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with CVAP (64% male, mean age 67 ± 12 years) were treated by five different implanting physicians for approved cardiac resynchronization therapy indications. The reason for CVAP was categorized by obstacle (focal occlusion, valve presence, small caliber vessel) and location. The number, type, and size of balloon used, inflation characteristics, complications, and success of lead deployment crossing the point of intervention were all tabulated. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients (36/47) had successful CVAP. The most common reason for intervention was a focal occlusion (24/47; 51%), followed by valve presence (13/47; 28%), and small vessel caliber (10/47; 21%). Focal occlusions were most successfully managed with CVAP (23/24; 96%), followed by small vessel caliber (7/10; 70%) and valve presence (6/13; 46%). The reason for failure was most commonly due to failure to relieve the obstruction (5/11; 45%), thrombosis (3/11; 27.3%), dissection (2/11; 18.2%), and inability to pass the balloon through the occlusion (1/11; 9.0%). There were no significant complications developed from CVAP utilization. CONCLUSION: In a large analysis, CVAP can be safely and successfully performed in the majority of instances required.

Recurrent Post-Ablation Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Shares Substrates With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation : An 11-Center Study.

INTRODUCTION: The role of atrial fibrillation (AF) substrates is unclear in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) that recurs after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We hypothesized that patients with recurrent post-ablation (redo) PAF despite PVI have electrical substrates marked by rotors and focal sources, and structural substrates that resemble persistent AF more than patients with (de novo) PAF at first ablation. METHODS: In 175 patients at 11 centers, we compared AF substrates in both atria using 64 pole-basket catheters and phase mapping, and indices of anatomical remodeling between patients with de novo or redo PAF and first ablation for persistent AF. RESULTS: Sources were seen in all patients. More patients with de novo PAF (78.0%) had sources near PVs than patients with redo PAF (47.4%, p=0.005) or persistent AF (46.9%, p=0.001). The total number of sources per patient (p=0.444), and number of non-PV sources (p=0.701) were similar between groups, indicating that redo PAF patients had residual non-PV sources after elimination of PV sources by prior PVI. Structurally, left atrial size did not separate de novo from redo PAF (49.5±9.5 vs. 49.0±7.1mm, p=0.956) but was larger in patients with persistent AF (55.2±8.4mm, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with paroxysmal AF despite prior PVI show electrical substrates that resemble persistent AF more closely than patients with paroxysmal AF at first ablation. Notably, these subgroups of paroxysmal AF are indistinguishable by structural indices. These data motivate studies of trigger versus substrate mechanisms for patients with recurrent paroxysmal AF after PVI.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing. METHODS: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSION: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.

Additional electrodes on the Quartet™ LV lead provide more programmable pacing options than bipolar and tripolar equivalents.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate any benefits to the number of viable pacing vectors and maximal spatial coverage with quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads when compared with tripolar and bipolar equivalents in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A meta-analysis of five previously published clinical trials involving the Quartet™ LV lead (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) was performed to evaluate the number of viable pacing vectors defined as capture thresholds ≤2.5 V and no phrenic nerve stimulation and maximal spatial coverage of viable vectors in CRT patients at pre-discharge (n = 370) and first follow-up (n = 355). Bipolar and tripolar lead configurations were modelled by systematic elimination of two and one electrode(s), respectively, from the Quartet lead. The Quartet lead with its four pacing electrodes exhibited the greatest number of pacing vectors per patient when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar modelled equivalents. Similarly, the Quartet lead provided the highest spatial coverage in terms of the distance between two furthest viable pacing cathodes when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar configurations (P < 0.05). Among the three modelled bipolar configurations, the lead configuration with the two most distal electrodes resulted in the highest number of viable pacing vectors. Among the four modelled tripolar configurations, elimination of the second proximal electrode (M3) resulted in the highest number of viable pacing options per patient. There were no significant differences observed between pre-discharge and first follow-up analyses. CONCLUSION: The Quartet lead with its four electrodes and the capability to pace from four anatomical locations provided the highest number of viable pacing vectors at pre-discharge and first follow-up visits, providing more flexibility in device programming and enabling continuation of CRT in more patients when compared with bipolar and tripolar equivalents.

Multicentre safety of adding Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) to conventional ablation for atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) uses 64-electrode basket catheters to identify atrial fibrillation (AF)-sustaining sites for ablation, with promising results in many studies. Accordingly, new basket designs are being tested by several groups. We set out to determine the procedural safety of adding basket mapping and map-guided ablation to conventional pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected 30 day procedural safety data in five US centres for consecutive patients undergoing FIRM plus PVI (FIRM-PVI) compared with contemporaneous controls undergoing PVI without FIRM. A total of 625 cases were included in this analysis: 325 FIRM-PVI and 300 PVI-controls. FIRM-PVI patients were more likely than PVI-controls to be male (83% vs. 66%, P < 0.001) and have long-standing persistent AF (26% vs. 13%, P < 0.001) reflecting patients referred for FIRM. Total ablation time was greater for FIRM-PVI (62 ± 22 min) vs. PVI-controls (52 ± 18 min, P = 0.03). The complication rate for FIRM-PVI procedures (4.3%) was similar to controls (4.0%, P = 1) for both major and minor complications; no deaths were reported. The rate of complications potentially attributable to the basket catheter was small and did not differ between basket types (Constellation 2.8% vs. FIRMap 1.8%, P = 0.7) or between cases in which basket catheters were and were not used (P = 0.5). Complication rates did not differ between centres (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural complications from the use of the basket catheters for AF mapping are low, and thus procedural safety appears similar between FIRM-PVI and PVI-controls in a large multicentre cohort. Future studies are required to determine the optimal approach to maximize the efficacy of FIRM-guided ablation.

Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that was "non-MRI-conditional" (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning). METHODS: Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings. RESULTS: MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self-terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P-wave and R-wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non-MRI-conditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; MagnaSafe ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00907361 .).

Safety and Efficacy of Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The MultiPoint Pacing Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial assessed the safety and efficacy of pacing 2 left ventricular sites with a quadripolar lead in patients with heart failure indicated for a CRT-D device. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy nonresponse is a complex problem where stimulation of multiple left ventricular sites may be a solution. METHODS: Enrolled patients were indicated for a CRT-D system. Bi-ventricular (Bi-V) pacing was activated at implant. Three months later, clinical response was assessed and the patient was randomized (1:1) to receive Bi-V pacing or MPP. Patients were followed for 6 months post-randomization and clinical response was again assessed. RESULTS: The CRT-D system was successfully implanted in 455 of 469 attempted implants (97%). A total of 381 patients were randomized to Bi-V or MPP at 3 months. The primary safety endpoint was met with freedom from system-related complications of 93.2%. The primary efficacy endpoint of the noninferiority comparison of nonresponder rates between the 2 arms was met. Patients randomized to MPP arm and programmed to pace from anatomically distant poles (MPP-AS) responded to therapy at significantly higher rates than MultiPoint pacing-other programmed settings (MPP-Other). Within this group, 87% were responders at 9 months, 100% designated as nonresponders at 3 months converted to responders at 9 months, and 54% experienced an incremental response compared to MPP-Other. Also within MPP-AS, 92% of patients with de novo CRT-D implant were classified as responders compared with patients with MPP-Other. CONCLUSIONS: MPP is safe and effective for treating heart failure. The study met the pre-specified hypothesis that response to MPP is noninferior to Bi-V pacing with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. (MultiPoint Pacing IDE Study [MPP IDE]; NCT01786993).

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).

Vdrive Evaluation of Remote Steering and Testing in Lasso Electrophysiology Procedures Study: The VERSATILE Study in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Circular mapping catheters (CMC) are an essential tool in most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. The Vdrive™ with V-Loop™ system enables a physician to remotely manipulate a CMC during electrophysiology studies. Our aim was to compare the clinical performance of the system to conventional CMC navigation according to efficiency and safety endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 120 patients scheduled to undergo a CMC study followed by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were included. Treatment allocation was randomized 2:1, remote navigation:manual navigation. The primary effectiveness endpoint was assessed based on both successful navigation to the targeted pulmonary vein (PV) and successful recording of PV electrograms. All PVs were treated independently within and between patients. The primary safety endpoint was assessed based on the occurrence of major adverse events (MAEs) through seven days after the study procedure. Primary effectiveness endpoints were achieved in 295/302 PVs in the Vdrive arm (97.7%) and 167/167 PVs in the manual arm (100%). Effectiveness analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0405; δ = -0.05) per the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for PV correlation. Five MAEs related to the ablation procedure occurred (three in the Vdrive arm-3.9%; two in the manual arm-2.33%). No device-related MAEs were observed; safety analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0441; δ = 0.07) per the normal Z test. CONCLUSION: Remote navigation of a CMC is equivalent to manual in PVI in terms of safety and effectiveness. This allows for single-operator procedures in conjunction with a magnetically guided ablation catheter.

Acute and early outcomes of focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided rotors-only ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation targets sites that are thought to sustain atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute and mid-term outcomes of FIRM-guided only ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with persistent and long-standing persistent (LSP) AF at three centers to undergo FIRM-guided only ablation. We evaluated acute procedural success (defined as AF termination, organization, or ≥10% slowing), safety (incidence of periprocedural complications), and long-term success (single-procedure freedom from atrial tachycardia [AT]/AF off antiarrhythmic drugs [AAD] after a 2-month blanking period). RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with persistent (N = 20) and LSP (N = 9) AF underwent FIRM mapping. Rotors were presents in all patients, with a mean of 4 ± 1.2 per patient (62% were left atrial); 1 focal impulse was identified. All sources were successfully ablated, and overall acute success rate was 41% (0 AF termination, 2 AF slowing, 10 AF organization). There were no major procedure-related adverse events. After a mean 5.7 months of follow-up, single-procedure freedom from AT/AF without AADs was 17%. CONCLUSION: In nonparoxysmal AF patients, targeted ablation of FIRM-identified rotors is not effective in obtaining AF termination, organization, or slowing during the procedure. After mid-term follow-up, the strategy of ablating FIRM-identified rotors alone did not prevent recurrence from AT/AF.