High-power short duration and low-power long duration in atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.
atrial fibrillation ablation
high power
low power
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
23
08
2020
revised:
08
10
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
pubmed:
7
11
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
6
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multiple strategies have advocation for power titration and catheter movement during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Comparative favoring evidence regarding the efficacy, logistics, and safety of a higher-power, shorter duration (HPSD) ablation strategy compared to a lower-power, longer duration (LPLD) ablation strategy is insubstantial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare arrhythmia-free survival, procedure times, and complication rates between the two strategies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to September 2020. We included studies comparing patients who underwent HPSD and LPLD strategies for AF ablation and reporting either of the following outcomes: Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) including AF and atrial flutter, procedure time, or periprocedural complications. We combined data using the random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ten studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 2274 patients were included (1393 patients underwent HPSD strategy and 881 patients underwent LPLD strategy). HPSD strategy was not associated with increased freedom from AT at 12-month follow-up (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.40, p = .054). In the subgroup analysis of the randomized controlled trial, the HPSD strategy was associated with increased freedom from AT compared to the LPLD strategy (OR = 3.12, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.20, p = .02). There was a significant reduction in the HPSD group for the total procedure (WMD = 49.60, 95% CI: 29.76 to 69.44) and ablation (WMD = 17.92, 95% CI: 13.63 to 22.22) times, but not for fluoroscopy time (WMD = 1.15, 95% CI: -0.67 to 2.97). HPSD was not associated with a reduction in esophageal ulcer/atrioesophageal fistula (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.12 to 1.06) or pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade rates (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.81). When compared to the LPLD strategy, the HPSD strategy does not improve recurrent AT nor reduce periprocedural complication risks. However, subgroup analysis of the randomized controlled trial showed that HPSD significantly reduces AT recurrence. An HPSD strategy can significantly reduce total procedure and ablation times.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Multiple strategies have advocation for power titration and catheter movement during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Comparative favoring evidence regarding the efficacy, logistics, and safety of a higher-power, shorter duration (HPSD) ablation strategy compared to a lower-power, longer duration (LPLD) ablation strategy is insubstantial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare arrhythmia-free survival, procedure times, and complication rates between the two strategies.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to September 2020. We included studies comparing patients who underwent HPSD and LPLD strategies for AF ablation and reporting either of the following outcomes: Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) including AF and atrial flutter, procedure time, or periprocedural complications. We combined data using the random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Ten studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 2274 patients were included (1393 patients underwent HPSD strategy and 881 patients underwent LPLD strategy). HPSD strategy was not associated with increased freedom from AT at 12-month follow-up (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.40, p = .054). In the subgroup analysis of the randomized controlled trial, the HPSD strategy was associated with increased freedom from AT compared to the LPLD strategy (OR = 3.12, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.20, p = .02). There was a significant reduction in the HPSD group for the total procedure (WMD = 49.60, 95% CI: 29.76 to 69.44) and ablation (WMD = 17.92, 95% CI: 13.63 to 22.22) times, but not for fluoroscopy time (WMD = 1.15, 95% CI: -0.67 to 2.97). HPSD was not associated with a reduction in esophageal ulcer/atrioesophageal fistula (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.12 to 1.06) or pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade rates (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.81).
CONCLUSIONS
When compared to the LPLD strategy, the HPSD strategy does not improve recurrent AT nor reduce periprocedural complication risks. However, subgroup analysis of the randomized controlled trial showed that HPSD significantly reduces AT recurrence. An HPSD strategy can significantly reduce total procedure and ablation times.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71-82Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sheng S, et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs. medical therapy on quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(13):1275-1285.
January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014;130(23):2071-2104.
Ghia KK, Chugh A, Good E, et al. A nationwide survey on the prevalence of atrioesophageal fistula after left atrial radiofrequency catheter ablation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2009;24(1):33-36.
Garg L, Garg J, Gupta N, et al. Gastrointestinal complications associated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol. 2016;224:424-430.
De Greef Y, Ströker E, Schwagten B, et al. Complications of pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation: predictors and comparison between four different ablation techniques: results from the MIddelheim PVI-registry. Europace. 2018;20(8):1279-1286.
Marijon E, Fazaa S, Narayanan K, et al. Real-time contact force sensing for pulmonary vein isolation in the setting of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: procedural and 1-year results. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25(2):130-137.
Zucchelli G, Sirico G, Rebellato L, et al. Contiguity between ablation lesions and strict catheter stability settings assessed by VISITAG(TM) module improve clinical outcomes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation-results from the VISITALY study. Circulation. 2018;82(4):974-982.
Wittkampf FH, Nakagawa H. RF catheter ablation: lessons on lesions. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29(11):1285-1297.
Bourier F, Duchateau J, Vlachos K, et al. High-power short-duration versus standard radiofrequency ablation: Insights on lesion metrics. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(11):1570-1575.
Pambrun T, Durand C, Constantin M, et al. High-power (40-50 W) radiofrequency ablation guided by unipolar signal modification for pulmonary vein isolation: experimental findings and clinical results. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12(6):e007304.
Bahnson TD. Strategies to minimize the risk of esophageal injury during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(2):248-260.
Frankel DS. Recipe for Ablation Success: Don't Cook the Goose. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(9):1045-1046.
Barkagan M, Contreras-Valdes FM, Leshem E, Buxton AE, Nakagawa H, Anter E. High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: Safety, efficacy, and long-term durability. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(9):1287-1296.
Leshem E, Zilberman I, Tschabrunn CM, et al. High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: biophysical characterization. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(4):467-479.
Baher A, Kheirkhahan M, Rechenmacher SJ, et al. High-power radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: using late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging as a novel index of esophageal injury. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(12):1583-1594.
Bunch TJ, May HT, Bair TL, et al. Long-term outcomes after low power, slower movement versus high power, faster movement irrigated-tip catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17(2):184-189.
Kottmaier M, Popa M, Bourier F, et al. Safety and outcome of very high-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2020;22(3):388-393.
Matiello M, Mont L, Tamborero D, et al. Cooled-tip vs. 8 mm-tip catheter for circumferential pulmonary vein ablation: comparison of efficacy, safety, and lesion extension. Europace. 2008;10(8):955-960.
Okamatsu H, Koyama J, Sakai Y, et al. High-power application is associated with shorter procedure time and higher rate of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation in ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(12):2751-2758.
Castrejón-Castrejón S, Martínez Cossiani M, Ortega Molina M, et al. Feasibility and safety of pulmonary vein isolation by high-power short-duration radiofrequency application: short-term results of the POWER-FAST PILOT study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020;57(1):57-65.
Vassallo F, Cunha C, Serpa E, et al. Comparison of high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation of atrial fibrillation using a contact force-sensing catheter and conventional technique: Initial results. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(10):1877-1883.
Yazaki K, Ejima K, Kanai M, et al. Impedance drop predicts acute electrical reconnection of the pulmonary vein-left atrium after pulmonary vein isolation using short-duration high-power exposure [published online ahead of print January 4, 2020]. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-019-00691-z
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603-605.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. 2011;343:d5928.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188.
Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046-1055.
Leo M, Pedersen M, Rajappan K, et al. Power, lesion size index and oesophageal temperature alerts during atrial fibrillation ablation: a randomized study [published online ahead of print September 8, 2020]. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020;13(10). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008316
Simmonds M. Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots. Syst Rev. 2015;4:24.
Debray TPA, Moons KGM, Riley RD. Detecting small-study effects and funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analysis of survival data: a comparison of new and existing tests. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):41-50.
Anter E, Contreras-Valdes FM, Shvilkin A, Tschabrunn CM, Josephson ME. Acute pulmonary vein reconnection is a predictor of atrial fibrillation recurrence following pulmonary vein isolation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014;39(3):225-232.
Macle L, Khairy P, Weerasooriya R, et al. Adenosine-guided pulmonary vein isolation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: an international, multicentre, randomised superiority trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9994):672-679.
Wongcharoen W, Tsao HM, Wu MH, et al. Morphologic characteristics of the left atrial appendage, roof, and septum: implications for the ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006;17(9):951-956.
Cabrera JA, Ho SY, Climent V, Sanchez-Quintana D. The architecture of the left lateral atrial wall: a particular anatomic region with implications for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(3):356-362.
Rozen G, Ptaszek LM, Zilberman I, et al. Safety and efficacy of delivering high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation lesions utilizing a novel temperature sensing technology. Europace. 2018;20(FI_3):f444-f450.
Reddy VY, Grimaldi M, De Potter T, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation with very high power, short duration, temperature-controlled lesions: the QDOT-FAST trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019;5(7):778-786.
Ücer E, Jungbauer C, Hauck C, et al. The low acute effectiveness of a high-power short-duration radiofrequency current application technique in pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation [published online ahead of print March 24, 2020]. Cardiol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2020.0033
Kawaji T, Hojo S, Kushiyama A, et al. Limitations of lesion quality estimated by ablation index: an in vitro study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(6):926-933.
Yavin HD, Leshem E, Shapira-Daniels A, et al. Impact of high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation on long-term lesion durability for atrial fibrillation ablation. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6:973-985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.04.023:1154
Ali-Ahmed F, Goyal V, Patel M, Orelaru F, Haines DE, Wong WS. High-power, low-flow, short-ablation duration-the key to avoid collateral injury? J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019;55(1):9-16.
Bhaskaran A, Chik W, Pouliopoulos J, et al. Five seconds of 50-60 W radio frequency atrial ablations were transmural and safe: an in vitro mechanistic assessment and force-controlled in vivo validation. Europace. 2017;19(5):874-880.
Yuyun MF, Stafford PJ, Sandilands AJ, Samani NJ, Ng GA. The impact of power output during percutaneous catheter radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation on efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(11):1216-1223.
Deneke T, Halbfass P, Purerfellner H. High-power short duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: simply cranking up the energy? Europace. 2020;22(3):335-337.
Ranjan R. Magnetic resonance imaging in clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;40(5):409-426.
Hilbert S, Sommer P, Gutberlet M, et al. Real-time magnetic resonance-guided ablation of typical right atrial flutter using a combination of active catheter tracking and passive catheter visualization in man: initial results from a consecutive patient series. Europace. 2015;18(4):572-577.
Vergara GR, Vijayakumar S, Kholmovski EG, et al. Real-time magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiofrequency atrial ablation and visualization of lesion formation at 3 Tesla. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(2):295-303.
Mukherjee RK, Chubb H, Roujol S, Razavi R, O'Neill MD. Advances in real-time MRI-guided electrophysiology. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2019;12(2):6.