Errors in pulmonary vein identification and ostia location in the absence of pulmonary vein imaging.

BACKGROUND: A key point in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is the ability to identify the pulmonary vein (PVs) and locate their ostia. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the error margin of PV identification and ostia location in the absence of previous PV imaging. METHODS: This study was performed in patients referred for catheter ablation of AF. PVs were reconstructed before ablation using the CARTO system. The operator tagged the superior and inferior edges of the PV ostia before and after examining the corresponding PV angiograms. The distances between the tagged PV ostia were measured using CARTO software. RESULTS: A total of 105 location estimations of 54 PVs were analyzed. The location of PV ostia without angiography deviated from the angiographic PV ostia by a median of 13 mm (95% confidence interval = 11-14 mm; P < .0001). In 84 of the 105 estimations (80%), wrong tagging was performed inside the PV. A multiple logistic regression revealed that, at sites displaying PV potentials, the left atrial potential amplitude was an independent predictor of location at the angiographic PV ostium (odds ratio 24 [95% confidence interval = 3.7-227] per 1-mV increase). Receiver operator characteristic analysis set the optimal cutoff level at 0.7 mV. Use of this criterion improved the accuracy of PV ostium location by 4 mm (95% confidence interval = 1-6 mm; P = .005). CONCLUSION: Attempts at PV identification and ostia location in the absence of previous PV imaging are subject to a broad error margin.

The COR trial: a randomized study with continuous rhythm monitoring to compare the efficacy of cryoenergy and radiofrequency for pulmonary vein isolation.

BACKGROUND: Results from randomized trials designed to compare cryoenergy with radiofrequency for pulmonary vein (PV) isolation are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a simplified strategy for PV cryoablation (group C) vs PV isolation with open-irrigated radiofrequency catheters (group R). METHODS: Fifty patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and 4 independent PVs received a Reveal XT implantable cardiac monitor and were randomized to group C or group R. In group C, PV ablation was done with a single Arctic Front balloon (23 or 28 mm) per patient and two 300-second applications per PV. No further applications were delivered to close residual conduction gaps. In group R, bidirectional PV conduction block was pursued with Lasso and Navistar ThermoCool catheters and the CARTO system. The primary end point was the proportion of patients remaining free from AF recurrences ≥2 minutes without taking antiarrhythmic drugs 12 months after ablation. RESULTS: The primary end point was met by 12 (48%) patients in group C and 25 (68%) patients in group R (odds ratio 0.43; P = .05). This difference disappeared after adjustment for acute procedural outcome. In patients for whom all 4 PVs were blocked at the end of the procedure, there was no difference between group C and group R in the primary end point (67% vs 68%; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the simplified strategy for PV cryoablation tested in this study is inferior to PV isolation using open-irrigated radiofrequency catheters with electrophysiological and electroanatomical guidance. Complete PV conduction block is critical to the success of AF ablation.