Comparison of pulsed-field ablation versus very high power short duration-ablation for pulmonary vein isolation.
atrial fibrillation ablation
high power short duration
pulmonary vein isolation
pulsed field ablation
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:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
29
08
2023
received:
16
07
2023
accepted:
02
10
2023
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
17
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The newly introduced nonthermal pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising technology to achieve fast pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with high acute success rates and good safety features. However, previous studies have shown that very high power short duration ablation (VHPSD) is also highly effective and fast to achieve PVI with potentially less arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional radiofrequency ablation. Data comparing PFA to VHPSD-PVI is lacking. This study compared procedural and outcome data for PFA-PVI to VHPSD-PVI in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (PAF/persAF). Consecutive patients undergoing de novo PVI (PFA or VHPSD) were included in this analysis. For PFA-PVI a pentaspline 20 electrode catheter was used. For VHPSD-PVI an enhanced irrigated catheter with a power setting of 70 W/7 s (70 W/5 s at posterior wall) was employed in conjunction with electro-anatomical mapping. All procedures were performed in deep analgo-sedation. A total of n = 114 patients (n = 57[50%] PFA, n = 17[30%] PAF; n = 40[70%] persAF) were included in this analysis. PVI was successful in all patients. The PFA group revealed a significantly shorter procedure duration (65 ± 17 min vs. 95 ± 23 min, p < 0.01) but longer fluoroscopy time (PFA 15 ± 5 min and VHPSD 12 ± 3 min; p < 0.001). At follow-up after median 125 days (interquartile range: 109-162) n = 46 PFA (80.7%) and n = 44 VHPSD pts (77.2%) were free from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure (p = 0.819). Two tamponades occurred in the PFA while in VHPSD two pts suffered groin bleedings. One clinically nonsignificant PV stenosis occurred in the VHPSD group. Pulsed-field ablation and VHPSD-PVI seem to be highly effective and safe to achieve PVI in the setting of PAF and persAF with comparable arrhythmia-free survival. However, procedure duration for PFA PVI is significantly shorter and therefore may be of potential benefit. Compared to PFA VHPSD-PVI might ensure information on left atrial substrate allowing to target concomitant secondary tachycardias.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The newly introduced nonthermal pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising technology to achieve fast pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with high acute success rates and good safety features. However, previous studies have shown that very high power short duration ablation (VHPSD) is also highly effective and fast to achieve PVI with potentially less arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional radiofrequency ablation. Data comparing PFA to VHPSD-PVI is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study compared procedural and outcome data for PFA-PVI to VHPSD-PVI in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (PAF/persAF).
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive patients undergoing de novo PVI (PFA or VHPSD) were included in this analysis. For PFA-PVI a pentaspline 20 electrode catheter was used. For VHPSD-PVI an enhanced irrigated catheter with a power setting of 70 W/7 s (70 W/5 s at posterior wall) was employed in conjunction with electro-anatomical mapping. All procedures were performed in deep analgo-sedation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of n = 114 patients (n = 57[50%] PFA, n = 17[30%] PAF; n = 40[70%] persAF) were included in this analysis. PVI was successful in all patients. The PFA group revealed a significantly shorter procedure duration (65 ± 17 min vs. 95 ± 23 min, p < 0.01) but longer fluoroscopy time (PFA 15 ± 5 min and VHPSD 12 ± 3 min; p < 0.001). At follow-up after median 125 days (interquartile range: 109-162) n = 46 PFA (80.7%) and n = 44 VHPSD pts (77.2%) were free from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure (p = 0.819). Two tamponades occurred in the PFA while in VHPSD two pts suffered groin bleedings. One clinically nonsignificant PV stenosis occurred in the VHPSD group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Pulsed-field ablation and VHPSD-PVI seem to be highly effective and safe to achieve PVI in the setting of PAF and persAF with comparable arrhythmia-free survival. However, procedure duration for PFA PVI is significantly shorter and therefore may be of potential benefit. Compared to PFA VHPSD-PVI might ensure information on left atrial substrate allowing to target concomitant secondary tachycardias.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2417-2424Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373-498.
Kuck K-H, Brugada J, Fürnkranz A, et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2235-2245. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602014
Maurer T, Schlüter M, Kuck KH. Keeping it simple. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(12):1577-1596.
Providencia R, Defaye P, Lambiase PD, et al. Results from a multicentre comparison of cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: is cryoablation more reproducible? Europace. 2017;19(1):48-57.
Wazni OM, Dandamudi G, Sood N, et al. Cryoballoon ablation as initial therapy for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(4):316-324.
Andrade JG, Wells GA, Deyell MW, et al. Cryoablation or drug therapy for initial treatment of atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(4):305-315.
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.
Ptaszek LM, Koruth J, Santangeli P, et al. Safe and effective delivery of high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation lesions with a flexible-tip ablation catheter. Heart Rhythm O2. 2023;4(1):42-50.
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.
Leshem E, Zilberman I, Tschabrunn CM, et al. High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(4):467-479.
Reddy VY, Grimaldi M, De Potter T, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation with very high power, short duration, temperature-controlled lesions. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019;5(7):778-786.
Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, et al. Pulsed-field ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7(5):614-627.
Verma A, Haines DE, Boersma LV, et al. Pulsed-field ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: pulsed AF pivotal trial. Circulation. 2023;147(19):1422-1432. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.063988
Turagam MK, Neuzil P, Schmidt B, et al. Safety and effectiveness of pulsed-field ablation to treat atrial fibrillation: one-year outcomes from the MANIFEST-PF registry. Circulation. 2023;148(1):35-46.
Ekanem E, Reddy VY, Schmidt B, et al. Multi-national survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety on the post-approval clinical use of pulsed-field ablation (MANIFEST-PF). EP Europace. 2022;24(8):1256-1266.
Tilz RR, Chun KRJ, Deneke T, et al. Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie zur Kardioanalgosedierung: Fokus auf Eingriffe in der Rhythmologie. Der Kardiologe. 2017;11(5):369-382.
Aytemir K, Canpolat U, Yorgun H, et al. Usefulness of ‘figure-of-eight’ suture to achieve haemostasis after removal of 15-French calibre femoral venous sheath in patients undergoing cryoablation. Europace. 2016;18(10):1545-1550.
Jensen CJ, Schnur M, Lask S, et al. Feasibility of the figure-of-8-suture as venous closure in interventional electrophysiology: one strategy for all? Int J Med Sci. 2020;17(7):965-969.
Winterfield JR, Jensen J, Gilbert T, et al. Lesion size and safety comparison between the novel flex tip on the flexability ablation catheter and the solid tips on the ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF ablation catheters. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(1):102-109.
Winkle RA, Mohanty S, Patrawala RA, et al. Low complication rates using high power (45-50 W) for short duration for atrial fibrillation ablations. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16(2):165-169. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.11.031
Kotadia ID, Williams SE, O'neill M. High-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of AF. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2020;8(4):265-272. doi:10.15420/aer.2019.09
Huo Y, Gaspar T, Schönbauer R, et al. Low-voltage myocardium-guided ablation trial of persistent atrial fibrillation. NEJM Evid. 2022;1(11).
Verma A, Jiang C, Betts TR, et al. Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1812-1822. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1408288
Steven D, Sultan A, Reddy V, et al. Benefit of pulmonary vein isolation guided by loss of pace capture on the ablation line. JACC. 2013;62(1):44-50.
Schaeffer B, Willems S, Sultan A, et al. Loss of pace capture on the ablation line during pulmonary vein isolation versus “dormant conduction”: is adenosine expendable? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol [Internet]. 2015;26:1075-1080. doi:10.1111/jce.12759
Gruwez H, Evens S, Proesmans T, et al. Head-to-head comparison of proprietary PPG and single-lead ECG algorithms for atrial fibrillation detection. EP Eur [Internet]. 2021;23(suppl ment_3).
Ravi V, Poudyal A, Abid QU, et al. High-power short duration vs. conventional radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2021;23(5):710-721.
Badertscher P, Weidlich S, Serban T, et al. Pulsed-field ablation versus single catheter high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: procedural characteristics, myocardial injury and midterm outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2023;20(9):1277-1278.
Füting A, Reinsch N, Brokkaar L, et al. Bronchial safety after pulsed field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2023;16(4):11547.
Castrejón-Castrejón S, Martinez-Cossiani M, Basterra Sola N, et al. An MRI substudy of the POWERFAST III trial: substroke. EHRA; 2023.
Reinsch N, Füting A, Höwel D, Bell J, Lin Y, Neven K. Cerebral safety after pulsed field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19(11):1813-1818.
Tohoku S, Chun KRJ, Bordignon S, et al. Findings from repeat ablation using high-density mapping after pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed-field ablation. EP Eur [Internet]. 2023;25(2):433-440.