Wide area circumferential ablation for pulmonary vein isolation using radiofrequency versus laser balloon ablation

Efficacy and Safety of Laser Balloon Versus Irrigated Radiofrequency Ablation as Initial Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) and, although radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the standard treatment for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), it is complex and time-consuming. Laser balloon ablation (LBA) has been introduced to simplify the conventional RFA; however, results of studies comparing LBA and RFA remain controversial. As such, this investigation aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of LBA versus RFA.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant studies. The primary endpoints were the freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) and procedure-related complications.

Results

Twelve studies including 1274 subjects were included. LBA and RFA yielded similar rates of freedom from ATA (72.5% vs. 68.7%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.7, p = 0.11) and procedure-related complications (7.7% vs. 6.5%, OR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.72-1.90, p = 0.536). LBA with the second- and third-generation laser balloons (LB2/3) yielded remarkably higher rates of freedom from ATA than RFA using contact-force technology (RFA-CF) (OR = 1.91, p = 0.013). Significantly lower pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection rates (OR = 0.51, p = 0.021), but higher phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) rates (OR = 3.42, p = 0.023) were observed in the LBA group. LBA had comparable procedure (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 8.43 min, p = 0.337) and fluoroscopy times (WMD = 3.09 min, p = 0.174), but a longer ablation time (WMD = 12.57 min, p = 0.00) than those for RFA.

Conclusions

LBA and RFA treatments were comparable in terms of freedom from ATA and postprocedural complications in patients with AF. Compared with RFA, LBA was associated with significantly lower PV reconnection rates, but a higher incidence of PNP and longer ablation time.

Ostial vs. wide area circumferential ablation guided by the Ablation Index in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) guided by the Ablation Index (AI) has shown high acute and mid-term efficacy in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Previous data before the AI-era had suggested that wide-area circumferential ablation (WACA) was preferable to ostial ablation. However, with the use of AI, we hypothesize that ostial circumferential ablation is non-inferior to WACA and can improve outcomes in paroxysmal AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, multicentre, non-randomized, non-inferiority study of consecutive patients were referred for paroxysmal AF ablation from January 2020 to September 2021. All procedures were performed using the AI software, and patients were separated into two different groups: WACA vs. ostial circumferential ablation. Acute reconnection, procedural data, and 1-year arrhythmia recurrence were assessed. During the enrolment period, 162 patients (64% males, mean age of 60 ± 11 years) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria-81 patients [304 pulmonary vein (PV)] in the WACA group and 81 patients (301 PV) in the ostial group. Acute PV reconnection was identified in 7.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.9-11.1%] of PVs in the WACA group compared with 3.3% (95% CI, 1.8-6.1%) of PVs in the ostial group [P < 0.001 for non-inferiority; adjusted odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83), P = 0.05]. Patients in the WACA group had longer ablation (35 vs. 29 min, P = 0.001) and procedure (121 vs. 102 min, P < 0.001) times. No significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was seen at 1-year of follow-up [11.1% in WACA vs. 9.9% in ostial, hazard ratio 1.13 (95% CI, 0.44-1.94), P = 0.80 for superiority].

CONCLUSION

In paroxysmal AF patients treated with tailored AI-guided PVI, ostial circumferential ablation is not inferior to WACA with regard to acute PV reconnection, while allowing quicker procedures with less ablation time.

Ganglionic Plexus Ablation: A Step-by-step Guide for Electrophysiologists and Review of Modalities for Neuromodulation for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

As the most common sustained arrhythmia, AF is a complex clinical entity which remains a difficult condition to durably treat in the majority of patients. Over the past few decades, the management of AF has focused mainly on pulmonary vein triggers for its initiation and perpetuation. It is well known that the autonomic nervous system (ANS) has a significant role in the milieu predisposing to the triggers, perpetuators and substrate for AF. Neuromodulation of ANS - ganglionated plexus ablation, vein of Marshall ethanol infusion, transcutaneous tragal stimulation, renal nerve denervation, stellate ganglion block and baroreceptor stimulation - constitute an emerging therapeutic approach for AF. The purpose of this review is to summarise and critically appraise the currently available evidence for neuromodulation modalities in AF.

Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing prevalence. Pharmacologic treatment remains the cornerstone of its management through rhythm and rate control, as well as the prevention of thromboembolism with the use of oral anticoagulants. Recent progress in percutaneous interventional approaches have provided additional options in the therapeutic arsenal, however. The use of the different catheter ablation techniques can now lead to long arrhythmia-free intervals and significantly lower AF burden, thus reducing the rate of its complications. Particularly encouraging evidence is now available for patients with persistent AF or concomitant heart failure, situations in which catheter ablation could even be a first-line option. In the field of stroke prevention, targeting the left atrial appendage with percutaneous device implantation may reduce the risk of thromboembolism to lower rates than that predicted with conventional ischemic risk scores. Left atrial appendage occlusion through the approved Watchman or Amplatzer devices is a well-established, efficacious, and safe method, especially in high-ischemic and bleeding risk patients with contraindications for oral anticoagulation.