A novel ablation strategy for recurrent atrial fibrillation: Fractionated signal area in the atrial muscle ablation 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) is sometimes challenging due to non-pulmonary vein (PV) foci. Fractionated signal area in the atrial muscle (FAAM) is a valid predictor of the location of non-PV foci. FAAM ablation has the potential to decrease the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia in patients with recurrent AF. We compared the clinical impact of FAAM ablation for recurrent AF, using 1 year follow up date.

METHODS

A total of 230 consecutive patients with symptomatic recurrent AF who underwent catheter ablation specifically targeting non-PV foci as FAAM-guided ablation (n = 113) and non-FAAM-guided ablation (n = 117) were retrospectively analyzed. FAAM was assigned a parameter (peaks slider, which indicates the number of components of fractionated signals), ranging from 1 to 15, indicating the location of the FAAM (1: largest, 15: smallest). FAAM-guided ablation was performed by ablating FAAM until none inducibility of non-PV foci. On the other hand, non-FAAM-guided ablation was performed via linear ablation, complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation, superior vena cava isolation, and focal ablation according to the location of the non-PV foci. The RHYTHMIA system was used to perform all the procedures. The primary endpoints were AF recurrence, atrial flutter, and/or atrial tachycardia.

RESULTS

After a 1-year follow up, freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia was achieved in 90.3% and 75.2% of patients in the FAAM and non-FAAM groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.438 [95% confidence interval: 0.243-0.788], p  =  .005).

CONCLUSIONS

FAAM ablation showed a promising decrease in the recurrence rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia in patients with recurrent AF during a 1-year follow-up.

Clinical outcome for heart failure hospitalizations in patients with leadless pacemaker

Introduction

The long‐term performance of leadless pacemaker (LPM) has not been well evaluated.

Methods

Between September 2017 and January 2021, 929 consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker implantation were grouped according to the types of pacemakers: LPM (LPM group, n = 368) and conventional pacemaker (PM group, n = 561).

Results

The median follow‐up duration was 1.7 years (interquartile range 0.8–2.6 years). Hospitalization rate for heart failure in the LPM group was 9.3%, 15.6%, and 21.6% at 1, 2, 3 years, respectively. The LPM group had a significantly higher adjusted heart failure hospitalization risk than the PM group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–2.64, p = .01]. More patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by sinus node dysfunction (SND) in the LPM group (n = 150) were admitted to the hospital for heart failure compared to those in the PM group (n = 219) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 1.04–3.90, p = .03), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two groups in the patients with bradycardia caused by atrial fibrillation (LPM group, n = 71; PM group, n = 18) or atrioventricular block (LPM group, n = 147; PM group, n = 324).

Conclusions

Patients who received LPM implantation had greater hospitalization risk for heart failure, compared to those who received conventional pacemaker implantation. The increased risk was mainly attributed to patients with SND.

Predictors of lead break during transvenous lead extraction

BACKGROUND

The incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of lead break during transvenous lead extraction (TLE) were previously unknown.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients who underwent TLE between September 2013 and July 2019 at our institute. Lead break during removal was defined as lead stretching and becoming misshapen, as assessed by fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients underwent TLE for 501 leads. At a patient level, complete success was achieved in 226 patients (91.9%). At a lead level, 481 leads (96.0%) were completely removed and 101 leads (20.1%) were broken during the procedure. Of 392 identified pacemaker leads, 71 (18.3%) were broken during the TLE procedure. A multivariable analysis confirmed high lead age (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.17; P < .001), passive leads (OR 2.29 95% CI 1.09-4.80; P = .028), coradial leads (OR 3.45 95% CI 1.72-6.92; P < .001), and insulators made of nonpolyurethane (OR 2.38 95% CI 1.03-5.26; P = .04) as predictors of lead break. Broken leads needed longer procedure times and were associated with a higher rate of cardiac tamponade.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead age, coradial bipolar leads, passive leads, and leads without polyurethane insulation were predictors of lead break and could increase the difficulty of lead extraction.