Impact of open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter with contact force measurement on the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation: a single-center direct comparison

Contact force sensing manual catheter versus remote magnetic navigation ablation of atrial fibrillation: a single-center comparison

BACKGROUND

Data comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) with manual catheter navigation in combination with contact force sensing (MCN-CF) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. The primary aim of the present retrospective comparative study was to compare the outcome of RMN versus (vs.) MCN-CF ablation of AF with regards to AF recurrence. Secondary aim was to analyze periprocedural risk, ablation characteristics and repeat procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 452 patients undergoing a total of 605 ablations of AF: 180 patients were ablated using RMN, 272 using MCN-CF.

RESULTS

Except body mass index there was no significant difference between groups at baseline. After a mean 1.6 ± 1.6 years of follow-up and 1.3 ± 0.4 procedures, 81% of the patients in the MCN-CF group remained free of AF recurrence compared to 53% in the RMN group (P < 0.001). After analysis of 153 repeat ablations (83 MCN-RF vs. 70 RMN; P = 0.18), there was a significantly higher reconnection rate of pulmonary veins after RMN ablation (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, RMN ablation (P < 0.001) and left atrial diameter (P = 0.013) was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence. Procedure time, radiofrequency application time and total fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopy dose were higher in the RMN group without difference in total number of ablation points. Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.722).

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective comparative study, the AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is significantly lower with more favorable procedural characteristics and similar complication rate utilizing MCN-CF compared to RMN.

Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Among Older Adults in the United States: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is increasingly recommended as first-line therapy for atrial fibrillation. Recent data suggest growing PVI volumes but rising complication rates, although comprehensive real-world outcomes including both inpatient and outpatient encounters remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics, population rates, and 30-day outcomes of PVI in a nationwide sample of U.S. adults aged >65 years.

METHODS

First-time PVIs were identified among U.S. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries using Current Procedural Terminology procedural codes. Comorbidities were ascertained using International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision diagnosis codes associated with each procedural claim. Outcomes included periprocedural complications, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

From January 2017 through December 2021, a total of 227,133 patients underwent PVI (mean age 72.5 years, 42% women, 92.7% White) with an increasing comorbidity burden over time. PVI volume increased from 83.8 (2017) to 111.6 per 100,000 patient-years (2021), which was driven by outpatient procedures (87.8% of all PVIs). Concurrently, there was a significant decrease in complication rates (3.9% in 2017 vs 3.1% in 2021; P < 0.001) and hospitalizations (8.8% vs 7.0%; P < 0.001), with no significant change in mortality (0.4%; P = 0.08). The most common periprocedural complications were bleeding (1.8%), pericardial effusion (1.4%), and vascular access damage (0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PVI has steadily increased among older patients in contemporary U.S. clinical practice; yet, cumulative complication and hospitalization rates at 30 days have decreased over time, with stably low rates of short-term mortality despite rising comorbidity burden among treated patients. These data may reassure patients and providers on the safety of PVI as an increasingly common first-line procedure for atrial fibrillation.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: anticipating and avoiding complications

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is being performed more frequently and more widely at more centers. This stems from several factors including 1) demographic forces leading to an increased prevalence of the arrhythmia; 2) greater availability of ambulatory monitoring making diagnosis more frequent; 3) relative inefficacy of medications; and 4) improved safety and efficacy of the procedure. Ablation has become much more streamlined and reproducible than a decade ago, but life-threatening complications may still arise.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on awareness, avoidance, and early recognition and management of complications of AF ablation. This literature review is challenged by differing approaches to ablation of AF both within a center and between centers, the rapid improvement of technology making the outcomes associated with a therapeutic strategy begun a few years prior relatively obsolete, as well as the heterogeneity of the population being studied.

EXPERT OPINION

Newer technologies are on the horizon which will allow us to ablate AF with increasing efficacy, efficiency, and hopefully safety. Such new technology and changing usage mandate vigilance to avoid complications.