Background
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using high power delivered by SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheters guided by ablation index (AI) was evaluated in a multicenter registry.
Methods
Patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PVI with STSF catheters using 30 W on the posterior wall and 40 W elsewhere. AI targets were 350 posterior walls and 450 elsewhere. Procedures were compared with controls using conventionally irrigated contact force‐sensing catheters using conventional powers (25 W posterior wall and 30 W elsewhere) guided by force‐time integral (no agreed targets). The waiting period of 30 minutes was observed before adenosine administration to assess acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection.
Results
One hundred patients from four centers were included: 50 patients in the high power ablation index (HPAI) group and 50 controls. Procedure time was 22% shorter in the HPAI group (156 [133.8‐179] vs 199 [178.5‐227] minutes; P < 0.001). Duration of the radiofrequency application was 37% shorter in the HPAI group (27.2 [21.5‐35.8] vs 43.2 [35.1‐52.1] minutes;
P < 0.001). Acute PV reconnection was reduced (28 of 200 [14%] vs 48 of 200 [24%] veins;
P = 0.015). Reconnection was predicted by a largest interlesion distance greater than 6 mm, a lesion with impedance drop less than 2.5 Ω, contact force less than 6 g, or less than 68% of the regional AI target (all
P < 0.001). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year off antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure was 78% in the HPAI group vs 64% in the control group (
P = 0.186).
Conclusion
High‐powered ablation guided by AI was safe and led to shorter procedure times with reduced acute PV reconnection compared with conventional ablation.
Non-invasive mapping identifies biatrial drivers that are critical in PsAF. This is validated by successful AF termination in the majority of patients treated in centres with no experience of the system. Ablation targeting these drivers results in favourable AF-free survival at 1 year, albeit with a significant rate of AT recurrence requiring further management.
AbstractAimsSeveral large studies have documented the outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), focusing on laser and mechanical methods. To date there has been no large series addressing the results obtained with rotational lead extraction tools. This retrospective multicentre study was designed to investigate the outcomes of mechanical and rotational techniques.Methods and resultsData were collected on a total of 2205 patients (age 66.0 ± 15.7 years) with 3849 leads targeted for extraction in six European lead extraction centres. The commonest indication was infection (46%). The targeted leads included 2879 pacemaker leads (74.8%), 949 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (24.6%), and 21 leads for which details were unknown; 46.6% of leads were passive fixation leads. The median lead dwell time was 74 months [interquartile range (IQR) 41–112]. Clinical success was obtained in 97.0% of procedures, and complete extraction was achieved for 96.5% of leads. Major complications occurred in 22/2205 procedures (1%), with a peri-operative or procedure-related mortality rate of 4/2205 (0.18%). Minor complications occurred in 3.1% of procedures. A total of 1552 leads (in 992 patients) with a median dwell time of 106 months (IQR 66–145) were extracted using the Evolution rotational TLE tool. In this subgroup, complete success was obtained for 95.2% of leads with a procedural mortality rate of 0.4%.ConclusionPatient outcomes in the PROMET study compare favourably with other large TLE trials, underlining the capability of rotational TLE tools and techniques to match laser methods in efficacy and surpass them in safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.