Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: randomized controlled trials and registries, a look back and the view forward

Acute safety, effectiveness, and real-world clinical usage of ultra-high density mapping for ablation of cardiac arrhythmias: results of the TRUE HD study

AIMS

The objective of this study was to verify acute safety, performance, and usage of a novel ultra-high density mapping system in patients undergoing ablation procedure in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The TRUE HD study enrolled patients undergoing catheter ablation with mapping for all arrhythmias (excluding de novo atrial fibrillation) who were followed for 1 month. Safety was determined by collecting all serious adverse events and adverse events associated with the study devices. Performance was determined as the composite of: ability to map the arrhythmia/substrate, complete the ablation applications, arrhythmia termination (where applicable), and ablation validation. Use of mapping system in the ablation validation workflow was also evaluated. Among the 519 patients who underwent a complete (504) or attempted (15) procedure, 21 (4%) serious ablation-related complications were collected, with 3 (0.57%) potentially related to the mapping catheter. Four hundred and twenty treated patients resulted in a successful procedure confirmed by arrhythmia-specific validation techniques (83.3%; 95% confidence interval: 79.8-86.5%). A total of 1419 electroanatomical maps were created with a median acquisition time of 9:23 min per map. Of these, 372 maps in 222 (44%) patients were collected for ablation validation purposes. Following validation mapping, 162/222 (73%) patients required additional ablation.

CONCLUSION

In the TRUE HD study mapping was associated with rates of acute success and complications consistent with previously published reports. Importantly, a low percentage of events (0.57%) was attributed to the mapping catheter. When performed, validation mapping was useful for identifying additional targets for ablation in the majority of patients.

Ablation as First-Line Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Yes

This article addresses the use of catheter ablation (CA) as first-line therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). CA increases long-term freedom from AF, reduces hospitalizations, and improves quality of life compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with symptomatic AF who have already failed one AAD. The role of CA as first-line therapy for AF, however, is still controversial. Evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that CA is definitely superior to AADs as first-line therapy for relatively young patients with paroxysmal AF, with comparable complication rates and results consistently reproducible across different institutions, operators, and types of ablation approaches.

Feasibility of implementation of a "simplified, No-X-Ray, no-lead apron, two-catheter approach" for ablation of supraventricular arrhythmias in children and adults

INTRODUCTION

Although the "near-zero-X-Ray" or "No-X-Ray" catheter ablation (CA) approach has been reported for treatment of various arrhythmias, few prospective studies have strictly used "No-X-Ray," simplified 2-catheter approaches for CA in patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). We assessed the feasibility of a minimally invasive, nonfluoroscopic (MINI) CA approach in such patients.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a prospective multicenter CA registry of patients with regular SVTs. After femoral access, 2 catheters were used to create simple, 3D electroanatomic maps and to perform electrophysiologic studies. Medical staff did not use lead aprons after the first 10 MINI CA cases.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients (age, 45 ± 21 years; 17% <19 years; 55% women) referred for the No-X-Ray approach were included. They were compared to 714 consecutive patients referred for a simplified approach using X-rays (age, 52 ± 18 years; 7% <19 years; 55% women). There were 9 protocol exceptions that necessitated the use of X-rays. Ultimately, 179/188 patients underwent the procedure without fluoroscopy, with an acute success rate of 98%. The procedure times (63 ± 26 vs. 63 ± 29 minutes, P > 0.05), major complications (0% vs. 0%, P > 0.05) and acute (98% vs. 98%, P > 0.05) and long-term (93% vs. 94%, P > 0.05) success rates were similar in the "No-X-Ray" and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a strict "No-X-Ray, simplified 2-catheter" CA approach is safe and effective in majority of the patients with SVT. This modified approach for SVTs should be prospectively validated in a multicenter study.

Advances in catheter ablation: atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with mitral mechanical prosthetic valve

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with mitral valve replacement (MVR). Treatment of AF in these subjects is challenging, as the arrhythmia is often refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is usually avoided or delayed in patients with MVR due to the higher perceived risks and difficulty of left atrial catheter manipulation in the presence of a mechanical valve. Over the last few years, several investigators have reported the feasibility and safety of RFCA of AF in patients with MVR. Five case-control studies have evaluated the feasibility and safety of RFCA of AF or perimitral flutter (PMFL) in patients with MVR. Overall, a total of 178 patients with MVR have been included (21 undergoing ablation of only PMFL), and have been compared with a matched control group of 285 patients. Total procedural duration (weigthed mean difference [WMD] = +24.5 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] +10.2 min to +38.8 min, P = 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (WMD = +13.5 min, 95% CI +3.7 min to +23.4 min, P = 0.007) were longer in the MVR group. After a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 8.6 months, 64 (36%) patients in the MVR group experienced recurrence of AF/PMFL, as compared to 73 (26%) patients in the control group, accounting for a trend toward an increased rate of recurrences in patients with MVR (odds ratio [OR] = 1.66, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.78, P = 0.053). Periprocedural complications occurred in 10 (5.6%) patients in the MVR group, and in 8 (2.8%) patients in the control group (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 0.56 to 7.15, P = 0.28). In conclusion, a quantitative analysis of the available evidence supports a trend toward a worse arrhythmia-free survival and a higher absolute rate of periprocedural complications in patients with MVR undergoing RFCA of AF or PMFL, as compared to a matched control group without mitral valve disease. These data would encourage the adoption of RFCA of AF in MVR patients mostly by more experienced Institutions.