Impact of Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion Combined with Anatomical Ablation for the Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Long-Term Follow-Up Based on Implantable Loop Recorders.

VOM ethanol infusion (EI) catheter ablation (CA) cavotricuspid isthmus line implantable loop recorder (ILR) left atrial (LA) roofline mitral line persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vein of Marshall (VOM)

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 20 09 2023
revised: 25 10 2023
accepted: 30 10 2023
medline: 14 11 2023
pubmed: 14 11 2023
entrez: 14 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The best ablation treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) patients is still debated. The vein of Marshall (VOM) seems to be a promising target for ablation and could be combined with a linear set of ablation lesions. The aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence of AF recurrences in a PeAF population treated with a comprehensive ablation approach consisting of VOM ethanol infusion (EI), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), a left atrial (LA) roofline, a mitral line (guided by the newly formed lesion after alcohol infusion into the VOM and validated by pacing), and a cavotricuspid isthmus line. Consecutive patients undergoing the first ablation procedure of catheter ablation (CA) for PeAF were enrolled. All patients underwent VOM-EI, PVI, and ablation lines along the roof of the LA, mitral, and cavotricuspid isthmus. LA voltage mapping before and after VOM-EI was also performed. An implantable loop recorder (ILR) was implanted at the end of the ablation in each patient. Thirty-one consecutive patients (66 ± 8 years and 71% male) affected by PeAF were included in this study. The VOM-EI procedural phase lasted 21.4 ± 10.1 min. PV isolation and lines were validated in all subjects. The ML block was achieved within 10.8 ± 8.7 min. At a mean follow-up of 12 ± 7 months, 27 out of 31 (87%) patients remained free from AT/AF recurrences. Among the patients with recurrences, two (50%) had incomplete ablation lesions and three (75%) had "suboptimal" VOM-EI. In 23/31 patients (74%), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) were discontinued after 1 month of follow-up. No significant complications were reported during the follow-up. this single-center experience demonstrates that VOM-EI systematically combined with an anatomical ablation set in patients with PeAF resulted in feasible, safe, and effective freedom from AF/AT recurrences in 87% of the population after a 1-year follow-up period according to an ILR.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The best ablation treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) patients is still debated. The vein of Marshall (VOM) seems to be a promising target for ablation and could be combined with a linear set of ablation lesions. The aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence of AF recurrences in a PeAF population treated with a comprehensive ablation approach consisting of VOM ethanol infusion (EI), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), a left atrial (LA) roofline, a mitral line (guided by the newly formed lesion after alcohol infusion into the VOM and validated by pacing), and a cavotricuspid isthmus line.
METHODS METHODS
Consecutive patients undergoing the first ablation procedure of catheter ablation (CA) for PeAF were enrolled. All patients underwent VOM-EI, PVI, and ablation lines along the roof of the LA, mitral, and cavotricuspid isthmus. LA voltage mapping before and after VOM-EI was also performed. An implantable loop recorder (ILR) was implanted at the end of the ablation in each patient.
RESULTS RESULTS
Thirty-one consecutive patients (66 ± 8 years and 71% male) affected by PeAF were included in this study. The VOM-EI procedural phase lasted 21.4 ± 10.1 min. PV isolation and lines were validated in all subjects. The ML block was achieved within 10.8 ± 8.7 min. At a mean follow-up of 12 ± 7 months, 27 out of 31 (87%) patients remained free from AT/AF recurrences. Among the patients with recurrences, two (50%) had incomplete ablation lesions and three (75%) had "suboptimal" VOM-EI. In 23/31 patients (74%), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) were discontinued after 1 month of follow-up. No significant complications were reported during the follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
this single-center experience demonstrates that VOM-EI systematically combined with an anatomical ablation set in patients with PeAF resulted in feasible, safe, and effective freedom from AF/AT recurrences in 87% of the population after a 1-year follow-up period according to an ILR.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37959380
pii: jcm12216916
doi: 10.3390/jcm12216916
pmc: PMC10648095
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov;5(11):1253-1261
pubmed: 31753429
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 May 13;63(18):1892-901
pubmed: 24561151
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007 Sep;293(3):H1629-35
pubmed: 17545480
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Dec;13(12):e008884
pubmed: 33197321
JAMA. 2020 Oct 27;324(16):1620-1628
pubmed: 33107945
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372(19):1812-22
pubmed: 25946280
Heart Rhythm. 2009 Oct;6(10):1403-12
pubmed: 19716348
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Jul;32(7):1849-1856
pubmed: 34028114
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Feb;3(1):32-8
pubmed: 19995881
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Aug;30(8):1215-1228
pubmed: 31148287
Circulation. 2007 Jun 19;115(24):3057-63
pubmed: 17562956
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Sep 20;46(6):1054-9
pubmed: 16168291
J Atr Fibrillation. 2021 Jun 30;14(1):20200492
pubmed: 34950366
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Aug;12(8):e007005
pubmed: 31401853
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006 Aug;17(8):839-46
pubmed: 16903962
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Apr;18(4):529-537
pubmed: 33383226
Europace. 2020 Aug 1;22(8):1252-1260
pubmed: 32594180
Heart Rhythm. 2008 Dec;5(12):1658-64
pubmed: 19084800
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004 Nov;15(11):1335-40
pubmed: 15574190
J Arrhythm. 2017 Oct;33(5):369-409
pubmed: 29021841
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Sep;16(9):1341-1347
pubmed: 31125669
Circulation. 2019 Nov 26;140(22):1779-1788
pubmed: 31630538
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May 25;55(21):2293-8
pubmed: 20488298
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Oct;36(4):1324-7
pubmed: 11028490
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Mar;8(3):367-376
pubmed: 35331432
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021 Mar;18(3):210-225
pubmed: 33051613
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Jul;13(7):1425-30
pubmed: 26961298
N Engl J Med. 1998 Sep 3;339(10):659-66
pubmed: 9725923

Auteurs

Martina Nesti (M)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Fabiana Luca (F)

Cardiology Department, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano, 89124 Reggio Calabria, Italy.

Luca Panchetti (L)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Silvia Garibaldi (S)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Umberto Startari (U)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Gianluca Mirizzi (G)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Federico Landra (F)

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.

Alberto Giannoni (A)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Health Science Interdisciplinary Center, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, 56127 Pisa, Italy.

Marcello Piacenti (M)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Andrea Rossi (A)

Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, 56124 Pisa, Italy.

Classifications MeSH