Efficacy of an Adjunctive Electrophysiological Test-Guided Left Atrial Posterior Wall Isolation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Without a Left Atrial Low-Voltage Area

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

Adjunctive left atrial posterior wall isolation for atrial fibrillation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Posterior left atrial wall isolation (PWI) plus traditional pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has been proposed as a promising intervention to decrease atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of adding PWI to the traditional PVI in patients with AF.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Cochrane through June 14, 2023. We used Stata version 17 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023446227).

RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with a total number of 1534 patients. Combined ablation with PWI + PVI was not associated with any significant difference over PVI only regarding the recurrence of clinical AF (RR: 0.86 with 95% CI [0.70-1.06]), all atrial arrhythmia (RR: 0.93 with 95% CI [0.82-1.07]), nonatrial fibrillation arrhythmia (RR: 1.22 with 95% CI [0.97-1.53]), early AF (RR: 0.89 with 95% CI [0.62-1.27]), and antiarrhythmic drugs at discharge (RR: 0.83 with 95% CI [0.67-1.04]). However, it was associated with increased total ablation duration (minutes) (MD: 12.58 with 95% CI [6.80-18.37]) and total procedure duration (minutes) (MD: 16.77 with 95% CI [9.63-23.91]), without any significant difference regarding adverse events (RR: 1.05 with 95% CI [0.63-1.74]).

CONCLUSION

While the pooled data from PWI + PVI using point-by-point radiofrequency did not suggest a benefit in the recurrence of various atrial arrhythmias compared to PVI alone, PWI+PVI using direct posterior wall ablation, especially with cryoballoon, demonstrated a significant reduction in recurrence of AF/atrial arrhythmias. Also, PWI + PVI significantly increased the ablation and total procedure durations.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

Borg's exertion scale did not coincide with ventilatory anaerobic threshold in atrial fibrillation patients with restored sinus rhythm after ablation

The determination of precise exercise intensity is essential for effective exercise rehabilitation. The Borg rating of perceived exertion category ratio (CR) scale is utilized to prescribe an appropriate level of exertion intensity. A Borg CR of approximately 13 coincides with the ventilatory aerobic threshold (VAT). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) exhibit various symptoms. We hypothesized that the workload at Borg CR13 (Borg CR13-Watt) differs from the workload at the VAT level (VAT-Watt) in AF patients with restored sinus rhythm (SR) following ablation. Accordingly, the relationship between Borg CR13-Watt and VAT-Watt was studied in patients with restored SR. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was performed at 101±88 days after ablation in 150 patients using a bicycle ergometer. No adverse events were observed during CPET. Borg CR13-Watt was significantly higher than VAT-Watt (67.2±27.8 Watt vs. 54.7±17.6 Watt, P<0.0001). Borg CR13-Watt showed significant linear regression with VAT-Watt (regression coefficient, 0.49, P<0.01; correlation coefficient, 0.80, P<0.01). Higher Borg CR13-Watt was associated with greater differences between Borg CR13-Watt and VAT-Watt (ΔWatt). The Bland-Altman plot showed nonconcordance between the two. Male sex, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and smoking had contributed to the increased ΔWatt. Duration from ablation to time of CPET did not correlate with ΔWatt. Therefore, Borg CR13-Watt did not coincide with VAT-Watt in patients with restored SR. Higher Borg CR13-Watt was associated with greater ΔWatt. Prescribing exertion intensity as determined solely by perceived exertion is inadequate. CPET is required to determine the precise exercise intensity in AF patients with restored SR after ablation.

Incidence of nausea/vomiting following propofol sedation with adaptive servo-ventilation for atrial fibrillation ablation

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation can cause considerable distress.

Aim

Continuous intravenous propofol sedation with adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) with or without an analgesic, pentazocine, during AF ablation was studied in 272 consecutive patients with paroxysmal, persistent, and long-standing persistent AF. The study objectives were to determine the incidence of PONV after AF ablation and to assess the predictive value of factors for PONV using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

The present sedation maneuver was successfully accomplished with a low incidence of hypotension and without discontinuation of ablation or switching to general anesthesia, while maintaining an acceptable procedural time (102 ± 32 min). The incidence of PONV was 5.5% (15/272). Nausea occurred in nine patients after an average of 4.6 ± 3.5 h (range: 2-12 h) postablation, and vomiting with nausea occurred in six patients after an average of 4.5 ± 3.1 h (range: 1-9 h) postablation. The postablation interval did not differ significantly between the occurrence of nausea and nausea accompanied by vomiting. AUCs based on various factors, including the Apfel score, ranged from 0.55 to 0.67, indicating low accuracy in predicting PONV occurrence.

Conclusions

The incidence of PONV after propofol sedation with ASV was the lowest (5.5%) reported to date. Scoring systems, which included the Apfel score, were ineffective in predicting PONV. The low PONV incidence in addition to the efficacy of propofol sedation with ASV revealed the adequacy of this regimen for AF ablation.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Adjunctive posterior wall isolation for the treatment of persistent and longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (CORNERSTONE AF) trial: Design and rationale

BACKGROUND

A left atrial posterior wall isolation (LAPWI) is one of the atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategies.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that an additional empirical LAPWI would increase the freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmias as compared to standard AF ablation in persistent AF patients.

METHODS

The CORNERSTONE AF study is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study investigating patients with AF persisting for >7 days and <3 years undergoing first-time AF ablation. They will be randomized to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) or PVI + LAPWI in a 1:1 manner. Although PVI can be performed with either radiofrequency catheters or cryoballoons, only radiofrequency catheters will be permitted to achieve LAPWIs. Additional focal ablation targeting non-pulmonary vein triggers will be allowed. A total of 516 patients will be enrolled in 17 centers between August 2022 and February 2024 based on the calculation with 80% power, considering the assumption that 65% and 75% of the PVI and PVI + LAPWI group patients will be free from atrial arrhythmia recurrence 18-months postprocedure (10% of dropout). The primary endpoint is freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias 18 months postsingle procedures. Clinical follow-up will include 7-day ambulatory electrocardiograms and routine outpatient consultations by electrophysiologists at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months postprocedure.

RESULTS

As of August 2023, a total of 331 patients (68 ± 9 years, 270 men, 43 longstanding persistent AF) have been enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

The CORNERSTONE AF study is a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an adjunctive empirical LAPWI following standard AF ablation in persistent AF patients.

Efficacy and safety of low voltage area ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, the recurrence rate of AF after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) remains high. The efficacy and safety of low voltage area (LVA) ablation in the treatment of AF are uncertain.

METHODS

The studies comparing the efficacy and safety of LVA ablation and LVA non-ablation for AF were systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed. Outcomes of interest included recurrent event, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. Continuous variables were evaluated with mean deviation (MD) and standard mean difference (SMD). Odds ratio (OR) values and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used in meta-analysis of binary variables.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The AF recurrence was similar between the two groups, with no statistical difference (25.7% (67/346) vs. 28% (63/225), P = 0.49). LVA ablation did not increase the incidence of AT (8.7% (20/231) vs. 14.5% (28/193), P = 0.66). Fluoroscopy time was longer in the LVA ablation group (31.4 ± 8.4 min vs. 26.3 ± 7.8 min, P < 0.05). Complication rates were similar between the two groups (26.6% (17/64) vs. 21.7% (13/60), P = 0.53). Patients with LVA had higher AT/AF recurrence (32.9% (213/647) vs. 24.2% (229/948), P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with left atrial LVA have a poor prognosis after catheter ablation. LVA ablation did not reduce the recurrence of AF nor did it increase the recurrence of atrial tachycardia.

Efficacy and durability of posterior wall isolation with ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall

INTRODUCTION

Ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall (EIVOM) is expected to be an adjunctive therapy for mitral isthmus (MI) ablation. Additionally, EIVOM can widely ablate the epicardium via the branches that extend to the left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) and facilitate LAPW isolation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and durability of LAPW isolation with EIVOM.

METHODS

Our cohort consisted of 413 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent both LAPW and MI ablations. EIVOM was first attempted in 177 (35%) patients with adequate VOMs. The VOM was infused with 5 mL of ethanol with a double coaxial guiding catheter technique. Both ablations were performed only by radiofrequency ablation (the RF group) in the remaining 236 (57%) patients.

RESULTS

EIVOM with 5 mL of ethanol was completely achieved in 106 patients (the EIVOM group). The application duration of LAPW isolation did not differ significantly between the two groups (718 ± 276 vs. 709 ± 288 s; p = .78). LAPW debulking ablation was required in 64/106 (60%) and 176/236 (75%) patients in the EIVOM and RF groups, respectively (p < .05). However, AF- or atrial tachycardia-free survival analyses revealed no significant differences between the two groups (log-rank p = .70). Among the cases of recurrence, 17 and 38 patients underwent subsequent ablation sessions; LAPW was reconnected in 9/17 (53%) and 25/38 (53%) patients (p = .36) in the EIVOM and RF groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EIVOM reduced the number of cases that required LAPW debulking ablation but did not improve the durability of LAPW isolation or clinical outcomes.

Omnipolar Versus Bipolar Electrode Mapping in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter Ablation

BACKGROUND

Peak-to-peak bipolar voltage varies with electrode orientation, fractionation, and collision events. Novel, omnipolar mapping is less dependent on electrode orientation but has limited data in humans.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare bipolar peak-to-peak voltage with omnipolar maximum voltage (Vmax) during sinus rhythm in the left atrium of patients with persistent (PerAF) or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF).

METHODS

Baseline voltage maps were generated with bipolar and omnipolar mapping in 20 patients undergoing de novo catheter ablation for PerAF or PAF and 9 patients with known scar from prior cardiac surgery, to validate voltage-based scar approximations. Low voltage was defined as <0.5 mV and scar <0.1 mV. Mean voltage was compared with unpaired t testing. Percent low voltage and scar were compared with chi-square testing. A point-to-point comparison was performed with Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 62.2 ± 9.9 years, 34% were women, and 41% had heart failure. Omnipolar mapping identified significantly higher mean voltage than bipolar mapping and classified less points as low voltage (PerAF: 32.90% vs 43.40%; PAF: 19.20% vs 25.60%) and scar (PerAF: 7.72% vs 12.10%; PAF: 4.03% vs 6.07%) (all P < 0.0001). Omnipolar Vmax displayed significant disagreement with bipolar by Bland-Altman analysis. Scar and low-voltage approximations were validated in atria with known scar, in which bipolar mapping overestimated the extent of low voltage (P < 0.0001) and scar (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Omnipolar mapping identifies higher voltage and has greater specificity for the detection of low voltage and scar than conventional bipolar mapping in patients with PerAF or PAF.

Clinical Impact of Posterior Wall Isolation in Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of pulmonary venous isolation alone for persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) remain unclear. Adjuvant posterior wall isolation (PWI) has become a potential supplementary strategy for improving the outcome of PerAF ablation. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of PWI added to catheter ablation for PerAF.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing the outcomes of PerAF ablation with and without PWI. The efficacy outcomes were recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (AA), atrial fibrillation (AF), and atrial tachycardia (AT), and the safety outcome was adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 8 studies with 1428 patients were included in the pooled analyses. The results showed that PWI significantly reduced the recurrence of AA (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55-0.87, p = 0.002, I² = 63%) and AF (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40 - 0.80, p = 0.001, I² = 70%). AT recurrence (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.67 - 1.27, p = 0.63, I² = 42%) and adverse events (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.67-1.84, p = 0.70, I² = 0%) were comparable between the two groups. In the sub-analyses, the efficacy of PWI in reducing AA recurrence was consistent in patients who underwent cryoablation or debulking ablation.

CONCLUSION

PWI effectively decreased AA recurrence after PerAF ablation without increasing the risk of AT or procedure-related complications. However, more randomized studies are needed to confirm these results. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Adjunctive Left Atrial Posterior Wall Isolation in Treating Atrial Fibrillation: Insight From a Large Secondary Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the role of adjunctive left atrium posterior wall isolation (PWI) in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence.

BACKGROUND

The left atrium posterior wall is an arrhythmogenic substrate that contributes to the development of AF.

METHODS

This was an updated pooled analysis that included clinical data regarding PWI plus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in treating AF. The primary outcome was recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies with 3,287 patients with AF (age 61.7 ± 10.8 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 15.2 ± 8.4 months. Procedural success to achieve PWI was 92.8%. In paroxysmal AF, adjunctive PWI did not reduce the recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias (P = 0.21) or AF (P = 0.37); however, in persistent AF, adjunctive PWI was associated with substantially lower recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias (risk ratio: 0.74; P < 0.001) and AF (risk ratio: 0.67; P = 0.01), particularly when randomized data were included. Subgroup analyses based on meta-regression demonstrated that patients with older age, a larger left atrial diameter, and persistent AF benefited more significantly from the adjunctive PWI. Adjunctive PWI using either radiofrequency or a cryoballoon reduced AF recurrence, whereas using radiofrequency seemed to be associated with higher recurrence rate of atrial tachycardias and/or atrial flutter. Non-BOX adjunctive PWI rather than BOX PWI was associated with significantly lower recurrence of AF. The incidence of procedural adverse events between the PVI+PWI (3.2%) and PVI (2.8%) groups was low and similar. PVI+PWI needed longer ablation and/or procedural time but had similar fluoroscopy time.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive PWI can be achieved in most patients without compromising safety. Patients with persistent AF appear to benefit from this approach. The ablation technology and/or approach may affect the clinical outcome of PWI.

Efficacy of electrical isolation of the left atrial posterior wall depends on the existence of left atrial low-voltage zone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Modification of the low-voltage zone in the left atrium (LA-LVZ) in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has not shown sufficient improvement in arrhythmia-free survival in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). Further, the effect of electrical posterior wall isolation (PWI) is controversial. We investigated the impact of existence of LA-LVZ on the outcome of patients undergoing additional PWI for PerAF.

METHODS

A total of 347 patients with PerAF who underwent primary catheter ablation with LA-LVZ based strategy were retrospectively analyzed. Voltage mapping in the left atrium (LA) was performed during sinus rhythm. Additional LVZ ablation was performed in patients with LA-LVZ. The operators decided whether additional PWIs were to be performed.

RESULTS

Of 347 patients, 108 had LA-LVZ. In the LVZ group, patients with additional PWI (N = 70) had higher rates of freedom from tachyarrhythmia recurrence than those without (77.1% vs. 42.1%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, even when patients were limited to those with LA-LVZ in areas other than the posterior wall (N = 85), PWI had higher success rates (80.9% vs. 42.1%, p < 0.001). In contrast, in patients without LVZ (N = 239), there was no significant difference in the rate of successful outcome between those with and without PWI (81.3% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.112). On the other hand, the patients with PWI had greater atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence rate than those without PWI (10.0% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

PWI, in addition to PVI and LVZ modification, may improve single procedural outcomes in patients with PerAF who have LVZ, regardless of the distribution in the LA. A combination of voltage-guided ablation and PWI may be a simple, tailored, and effective ablation strategy.

Left Atrial Reverse Remodeling Following the Modified Box Isolation with Centerline in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Esophageal injury is a rare but serious complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. To minimize esophageal injury, our persistent AF (PerAF) protocol involves complete left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) and pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (box isolation), with a centerline away from the esophagus. However, there has been a concern that extensive LA isolation might deteriorate LA function. There has been a paucity of data on LA remodeling after box isolation. Therefore, we compared LA size pre- and post-box isolation with an LAPW centerline in patients with PerAF.Patients who underwent catheter ablation (CA) for PerAF between November 2016 and December 2018 were retrospectively evaluated.The LAPW, including all PVs, was completely isolated in 105 consecutive patients (75 men; mean age: 68 ± 10 years) with PerAF, including 58 patients with long-standing PerAF. During a follow-up of 660 ± 332 days, 76 patients (72%) were arrhythmia-free. The LA dimension (38 ± 6 mm versus 42 ± 7 mm; P < 0.0001) and volume index (38 ± 13 mL/m² versus 47 ± 14 mL/m²; P < 0.0001) at 6 months post-ablation were significantly decreased in patients who maintained sinus rhythm compared to pre-ablation. In patients with recurrent AF/atrial tachycardia (AT), these parameters were also significantly decreased (P < 0.001, respectively).Box isolation with a posterior centerline has no esophageal complications and a high clinical success rate in patients with PerAF. Reverse remodeling could be achieved even when using extensive isolation of the PV and LAPW in patients with PerAF.