Search

In this study, the authors investigated the ablation success of scar homogenization with combined (epicardial + endocardial) vs endocardial-only approach for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) at 5 years of follow-up.Best ablation approach to achieve long-term success rate in VT patients with ICM is not known yet.Consecutive ICM patients undergoing VT ablation at our center were classified into group 1: endocardial + epicardial scar homogenization and group 2: endocardial scar homogenization. Patients with previous open heart surgery were excluded. Epicardial ablation was performed despite being noninducible after endocardial ablation in all group 1 patients. All patients underwent bipolar substrate mapping with standard scar settings defined as normal tissue1.5 mV and severe scar 0.5 mV. Noninducibility of monomorphic VT was the procedural endpoint in both groups. Patients were followed up every 4 months for 5 years with implantable device interrogations.A total of 361 patients (group 1: n = 70 and group 2: n = 291) were included in the study. At 5 years, 81.4% (n = 57/70) patients from group 1 and 66.3% (n = 193/291) from group 2 were arrhythmia-free (P = 0.01) Of those patients, 26 of 57 (45.6%) and 172 of 193 (89.1%) from group 1 and group 2 respectively were on anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) (log-rank P0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, and obstructive sleep apnea, endo-epicardial scar homogenization was associated with a significant reduction in arrhythmia-recurrence (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.86; P = 0.02).In this series of patients with ICM and VT, epicardial substrate was detected in all group 1 patients despite being noninducible after endocardial ablation. Moreover, combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization was associated with a significantly higher success rate at 5 years of follow-up and a substantially lower need for antiarrhythmic drugs after the procedure compared with the endocardial ablation alone.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) energy applications targeting the atrial side of a significant residual leak in patients with acute and chronic evidence of incomplete percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion. Background RF applications have been proved to prevent recanalization of intracranial aneurysms after coil embolization, thereby favoring complete sealing. From a mechanistic standpoint, in vitro and in vivo experiments have demonstrated that RF promotes collagen deposition and tissue retraction. Methods Forty-three patients (mean age 75 ± 7 years mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.6 ± 1.4, mean HAS-BLED score 4.0 ± 1.1) with residual leaks ≥4 mm after Watchman implantation were enrolled. Procedural success was defined as complete LAA occlusion or presence of a mild or minimal (1- to 2-mm) peridevice leak on follow-up transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), which was performed approximately 45 days after the procedure. Results RF-based leak closure was performed acutely after Watchman implantation in 19 patients (44.2%) or scheduled after evidence of significant leaks on follow-up TEE in 24 others (55.8%). The median leak size was 5 mm (range: 4-7 mm). On average, 18 ± 7 RF applications per patient (mean maximum contact force 16 ± 3 g, mean power 44 ± 2 W, mean RF time 5.1 ± 2.5 minutes) were performed targeting the atrial edge of the leak. Post-RF median leak size was 0 mm (range: 0-1 mm). A very low rate (2.3% [n = 1]) of major periprocedural complications was observed. Follow-up TEE revealed complete LAA sealing in 23 patients (53.5%) and negligible residual leaks in 15 (34.9%). Conclusions RF applications targeting the atrial edge of a significant peri-Watchman leak may promote LAA sealing via tissue remodeling, without increasing complications. (RF Applications for Residual LAA Leaks [REACT]; NCT04726943 )

Objectives This study evaluated the association of the post-ablation scar with stroke risk in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Background Late gadolinium enhancement–...

Objectives Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) using irrigated radiofrequency is the most frequently used ablation technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation worldwide. Background To date, no large randomized multicenter trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of CPVI using robotic navigation (RN) systems compared with the current gold standard of manual ablation (MN). Methods In this prospective, international multicenter noninferiority trial, 258 patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were randomized for CPVI using either RN (RN group, n = 131) or manual ablation (MN group, n = 127). In all patients, CPVI was performed using irrigated radiofrequency ablation in combination with a 3-dimensional mapping system. The primary endpoint was the absence of atrial arrhythmia recurrence on or off antiarrhythmic drugs during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were the evaluation of periprocedural complications and procedural data such as procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and incidence of esophageal injury. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between the RN group and MN group. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the MN group (129.3 ± 43.1 min vs. 140.9 ± 36.5 min; p = 0.026). 247 patients completed the 12-month follow-up (RN group, n = 123; MN group, n = 124). Recurrence rate was comparable between the RN and MN groups (n = 29 of 123 [23.6%] vs. 25 of 124 [20.2%]). The incidence of procedure-related major complications did not differ significantly between ablation arms (RN group, n = 8 [6.1%] vs. MN group, n = 6 [4.7%]; p = 0.62). One patient from the RN group developed a fatal atrioesophageal fistula. Conclusions This study demonstrated that robotic ablation is noninferior to the current gold standard of manual ablation for CPVI with respect to success and complication rates. Procedure times were significantly longer in the RN group. (Alster Man and Machine: Comparison of Manual and Mechanical Remote Robotic Catheter Ablation for Drug-Refractory Atrial Fibrillation; NCT00982475)

The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of hypertension on the outcome of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.Hypertension is a well-known independent risk factor for incident AF.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.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.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.

We read with interest the recent paper published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology by Zaman et al. [(1)][1] titled “Recurrent Post-Ablation Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Shares Substrates With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.” In that paper, the rotors and focal sources are referred to as