After LAAI, an unexpectedly high incidence of LAA thrombus formation and stroke was observed despite OAC therapy.

C atheter ablation has become a routine treatment option for patients experiencing symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term clinical success rates of ≤80% after 5 years have been reported for the treatment of paroxysmal AF by initial stand-alone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) as the accepted cornerstone of all AF ablation strategies; however, to achieve permanent PVI, multiple procedures are often required. 1,2 In contrast, the results for ablation of persistent AF are less convincing. 3 The optimal strategy for persistent AF is not known, and previous studies investigating more extensive ablation strategies in addition to PVI demonstrated heterogeneous results. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The recently published STAR AF 2 trial (Substrate and Trigger Ablation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Trial) compared initial stand-alone PVI to PVI with additional ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) or additional linear ablation and could not demonstrate a superior outcome for the additional ablation strategies. 13 The prospective and randomized Alster-Lost-AF © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc. Original ArticleBackground-Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for persistent atrial fibrillation is associated with limited success rates and often requires multiple procedures to maintain stable sinus rhythm. In the prospective and randomized Alster-Lost-AF trial (Ablation at St. Georg Hospital for Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation), we sought to assess, in patients with symptomatic persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, the outcomes of initial ablative strategies comprising either stand-alone PVI (PVI-only approach) or a stepwise approach of PVI followed by complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation and linear ablation (Substrate-modification approach). Methods and Results-Patients were randomized 1:1 to stand-alone PVI or PVI plus substrate modification. The primary study end point was freedom from recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia, outside a 90-day blanking period, at 12 months. A total of 124 patients were enrolled, with 118 patients included in the analysis (61 in the PVI-only group, 57 in the Substrate-modification group). Atrial tachyarrhythmias recurred in 28 PVI-only group patients and 24 Substratemodification group patients, for 1-year freedom from tachyarrhythmia recurrence after a single ablation procedure of 54% (95% confidence interval, 43%-68%) in the PVI-only and 57% (95% confidence interval, 46%-72%) in the Substratemodification group (P=0.86). Twenty-four patients in the PVI-only group (39%) and 18 in the Substrate-modification group (32%) were without arrhythmia recurrence and off antiarrhythmic drug therapy at the end of the 12-month follow-up. Conclusions-In

No abstract

Patients with an LCPV undergoing CB2-based PVI demonstrate a high acute success rate. Comparable results with regard to clinical success and durability of PVI were shown when comparing patients of the LCPV group and the control group.

Background:The arctic front cryoballoon (AF-CB) provides effective and durable pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) associated with encouraging clinical outcome. The POLARx cryoballoon incorporates unique features and design changes that may translate into improved efficacy, safety and further simplified balloon-based procedures. Efficacy and safety of the novel POLARx cryoballoon was compared to the fourth generation AF-CB (AF-CB4).Methods and Results: Twenty-five consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were prospectively enrolled, underwent POLARx-based PVI (POLARx group) and were compared to 25 consecutive patients treated with the AF-CB4 (AF-CB4 group). All PVs were successfully isolated utilizing the POLARx and AF-CB4. A significant difference regarding the mean minimal cryoballoon temperatures reached using the AF-CB4 and POLARx (−50±6°C vs. −57±7°C, P=0.004) was observed. Real-time PVI was visualized in 81% of POLARx patients and 42% of AF-CB4 patients (P<0.001). Utilizing the POLARx, a trend towards shorter median procedure time (POLARx: 45 [39, 53] min vs. AF-CB4: 55 [50, 60] min; P=0.062) was found. No differences were observed between AF-CB4 and POLARx concerning catheter maneuverability, catheter stability and periprocedural complications. Conclusions:The novel POLARx showed similar safety and efficacy compared to the AF-CB4. A higher rate of real-time PV recordings and significantly lower minimal balloon temperatures were observed using the POLARx.