Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology最新文献

Background

The safety and efficacy of CA for AF and left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AA) in patients with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices are lacking.

Methods

This is a single-center retrospective registry that included all patients with prior LAAO who underwent catheter ablation for AF or left-sided atrial arrhythmia from January 2020–January 2023. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, device-related complications, AA recurrence, and stroke.

Results

A total of 30 patients with prior LAAO were included in the analysis (mean age 75.1 ± 7.1 years old, 50% male, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 4 ± 1.6, 46.7% paroxysmal AF, 73.3% had prior AF ablation, mean time to ablation 475 ± 365 days). 93.3% (n = 28) and 6.6% (n = 2) patients had ablation for AF (46.7% paroxysmal, 36.7% persistent, 10% long-standing persistent) and left-sided atrial tachycardia, respectively. 16.7% (n = 5) patients underwent ablation along the left atrial appendage ostium, and 3.3% (n = 1) underwent Vein of Marshall alcohol ablation. There were 3 (10%) peri-procedural complications (1 access hematoma and two pericardial effusions requiring intervention—none related to left atrial appendage ostium or alcohol ablation). During the mean follow-up of 440 ± 379 days, 40% (n = 12) patients had AA recurrence (91.6% AF, 8.3% atrial tachycardia), of which five patients needed repeat ablation, and two patients were readmitted for heart failure. There was no stroke or any device-related complications, including new peri-device leaks or device-related thrombosis in patients who had follow-up imaging studies (n = 11, 36.7%).

Conclusion

Catheter ablation for AF (including VoM alcohol ablation) in patients with prior LAAO devices is feasible and safe with favorable outcomes.

Graphical Abstract

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), has yet to be evaluated in a Japanese cohort.

Methods: In this sub-analysis of the PULSED AF trial, 12-month outcomes of paroxysmal AF (PAF) and persistent AF (PsAF) patients treated with PFA in four Japan centers were assessed. After a 90-day blanking period, primary efficacy was determined via freedom from a composite endpoint of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic drug escalation over 1 year. Patient improvement was evaluated via two quality of life (QoL) surveys (AFEQT and EQ-5D) at baseline and 12 months.

Results: The analysis included 32 patients, 16 PAF and 16 PsAF, with PAF patients averaging 61.1 ± 10.6 years and PsAF patients averaging 62.8 ± 11.5 years of age. Females made up 31% of PAF and 25% of PsAF cohorts. Acute pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of both cohorts. The primary efficacy success rate at 12 months was 75.0% for PAF and 56.3% for PsAF patients. No primary safety events occurred. The mean AFEQT score significantly increased for both PAF (25.9 points, p < 0.0001) and PsAF (13.2 points, p = 0.0002) patients, while the EQ-5D-5L score improved significantly for PAF (0.12 points, p = 0.048) patients but not for PsAF (0.04 points, p = 0.08) patients.

Conclusions: Similar to outcomes in the global cohort, ablation with the PulseSelect™ PFA catheter was efficient, effective, and safe in a Japanese population, resulting in improved QoL for PAF and PsAF patients.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04198701.

Background: Combined catheter ablation (CA) with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may produce comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) whereby rhythm control is achieved and stroke risk is reduced without the need for chronic oral anticoagulation. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy is still controversial.

Methods: This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eligible studies reported outcomes in patients with AF who underwent combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone. Studies performing CA without pulmonary vein isolation were excluded.

Results: Eight studies comprising 1878 patients were included (2 RCT, 6 observational). When comparing combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone, pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.33), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27-2.22), or major periprocedural complications (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28-5.89). Total procedure time was shorter with CA alone (mean difference 48.45 min; 95% CI 23.06-74.62).

Conclusion: Combined CA with LAAC for AF is associated with similar rates of arrhythmia-free survival, stroke, and major periprocedural complications when compared to CA alone. A combined strategy may be as safe and efficacious for patients at moderate to high risk for bleeding events to negate the need for chronic oral anticoagulation.

Background: Early recurrence (ER) within a 90-day blanking period (BP) in catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for late recurrence (LR) after 90 days postoperatively. However, few reports have examined them in the second CA and compared them to the first CA. Moreover, in recent years, there have been reports suggesting that BP should be reduced from 90 to 30 days. Therefore, the association between ER and LR in the first and the second CA was examined, and the validity of a 30-day BP was evaluated.

Methods: A total of 511 consecutive patients undergoing the first CA and 116 of these patients undergoing the second CA for AF at a single institution from November 2016 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively.

Results: When ER within a 90-day BP was divided into 0-30 days and 31-90 days according to the timing of the last ER episode, the hazard ratios on LR of them relative to no ER were 2.7 {95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-4.2} and 9.7 (95% CI 6.6-14.3), respectively, for the first CA and 15.3 (95% CI 4.7-50.1) and 44.1 (95% CI 14.0-139.4), respectively, for the second CA.

Conclusions: ER was strongly associated with LR, especially in patients with the last episode of ER more than 30 days after CA. This was pronounced in cases after the second CA, when PVI appeared to be completed. With the current improvement in PVI durability, BP may be acceptable for 30 days.

Background: The use of an antibacterial envelope is cost-effective for patients at high risk of developing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The identification of these high-risk patients may be facilitated using a clinical risk score. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the PADIT score for identifying high-risk patients in patients undergoing a CIED procedure in a tertiary academic center.

Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study of consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure between January 2016 and November 2021. Patients who received an antibacterial envelope were excluded from this study. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for a CIED infection in the first year after the procedure.

Results: A total of 2333 CIED procedures were performed in the study period (mean age 61.6 ± 16.3 years, male sex 64.5%, previous CIED infection 1.7%, immunocompromised 5.4%). The median PADIT score was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). CIED infection occurred in 10 patients (0.43%). The PADIT score had good discrimination in predicting major CIED infection (C-statistic 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.86, P = 0.03). Using an optimal PADIT score cut-off value of 7, the risk of CIED infection was higher in the patients with a PADIT score of ≥ 7 in comparison to those with a lower PADIT score (1.23% vs. 0.26%, P = 0.02; odds ratio 4.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 16.6, P = 0.01).

Conclusions: The PADIT score is a clinically useful score for identifying patients at high risk of developing CIED infection. The use of an antibacterial envelope in these high-risk patients may be cost-effective.

Background: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as an alternative to conventional standard-power long-duration (SPLD) ablation. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of HPSD versus SPLD for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were performed through August 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Prospero id: CRD42023471797.

Results: We included six RCTs with a total of 694 patients. HPSD was significantly associated with a decreased total procedure time (MD: -22.88 with 95% CI [-36.13, -9.63], P = 0.0007), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) time (MD: -19.73 with 95% CI [-23.93, -15.53], P < 0.00001), radiofrequency time (MD: -10.53 with 95% CI [-12.87, -8.19], P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between HPSD and SPLD ablation with respect to the fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.69 with 95% CI [-2.00, 0.62], P = 0.30), the incidence of esophageal lesions (RR: 1.15 with 95% CI [0.43, 3.07], P = 0.77), and the incidence of first pass isolation (RR: 0.98 with 95% CI [0.88, 1.08], P = 0.65).

Conclusion: HPSD ablation was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time, PVI time, and radiofrequency time compared with SPLD ablation. On the contrary, SPLD ablation was significantly associated with low maximum temperature.