This study demonstrates significantly better outcomes in terms of restenosis after stent implantation versus PTA only, with comparable complication rates for these 2 options of interventional treatment of radiofrequency-induced PVS. In summary, despite the lack of randomized studies, the present data and currently available published studies seem to favor stent implantation as a first-line therapy in patients with radiofrequency-induced severe PVS.

Device type and location constitute the main independent predictors of CMR image quality and thus, need to be considered during protocol adaptation. Most notably, post-contrast SGE cine imaging proved superior to conventionally used SSFP sequences. Thus, following the proposed device-dependent CMR imaging strategy, diagnostic image quality can be achieved in the majority of device patients.

No abstract

Background: Thermal injury during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) can lead to pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS). It is currently unclear if routine screening for PVS by imaging (echocardiography, computed tomography) is clinically meaningful and if there is a correlation between PVS and the electroanatomical mapping system (EAMS) used for the ablation procedure. It was therefore investigated in the current single center experience. Methods: All patients from January 2004 to December 2016 with the diagnosis of PVS after interventional ablation of AF by radiofrequency were retrospectively analyzed. From 2004 to 2007, transesophageal echocardiography was routinely performed as screening for RFA-acquired PVS (group A). Since 2008, diagnostics were only initiated in cases of clinical symptoms suggestive for PVS (group B). Results: The overall PVS rate after interventional RFA for AF of the documented institution is 0.72% (70/9754). The incidence was not influenced by screening: group A had a 0.74% PVS rate and group B a 0.72% rate (NS). Referred to as the EAMS, there were significant differences: 20/4229 (0.5%) using CARTO ® , 48/4510 (1.1%) using EnSite ® , 1/853 (0.1%) using MediGuide ® , and 1/162 (0.6%) using Rhythmia ®. Since 2009, no significant difference between technologies was found. Conclusions: The present analysis of 9754 procedures revealed 70 cases of PVS. The incidence of PVS is not related to screening but to the application of different EAMS. Possible explanations are technological backgrounds (magnetic vs. electrical), learning curves, operator experience, and work-flow differences. Furthermore, incorporation of new technologies seems to be associated with higher incidences of PVS before workflows are optimized.

No abstract