The optimal approach for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains unknown. In patients with persistent AF, we compared an ablation strategy based on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus ablation of drivers (PVI + D), with a conventional PVI-only approach performed in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort.
Drivers were subjectively identified using conventional high-density mapping catheters (IntellaMap ORION, PentaRay NAV or Advisor HD Grid), without dedicated software, as fractionated continuous or quasicontinuous electrograms on 1 to 2 adjacent bipoles, which were ablated first; and as sites with spatiotemporal dispersion (the entire cycle length comprised within the mapping catheter) plus noncontinuous fractionation, which were only targeted in patients without fractionated continuous electrograms, or without AF conversion after ablation of fractionated continuous electrograms. Ablation included PVI plus focal or linear ablation targeting drivers.
A total of 50 patients were included in each group (61 ± 10 years, 25% women). Fractionated continuous electrograms were found and ablated in 21 patients from the PVI + D group (42%), leading to AF conversion in 7 patients. In the remaining 43 patients, 143 sites with spatiotemporal dispersion plus noncontinuous fractionation were targeted. Globally, AF conversion was achieved in 21 patients (42%). The PVI + D group showed lower atrial arrhythmia recurrences at 1 year of follow-up (30.6% vs 48%; P = .048) and at the last follow-up (46% vs 72%; P = .013), and less progression to permanent AF (10% vs 40%; P = .001).
Subjective identification and ablation of drivers, added to PVI, increased 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia and decreased long-term recurrences and progression to permanent AF.
In recent years, there has been a notable shift in cardiovascular clinical practice within cardiology and surgery. The CARDIOXCARDIO study aimed to identify professionals’ opinions on working practices and relations between specialties. A survey was simultaneously sent to the 4442 members of the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular and Endovascular Surgery (SECCE) and the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC), yielding 385 valid responses. More than half (59%) of respondents were men, mostly specialists (7.3% residents), and 74.8% worked in the field of cardiology, predominantly in public centers (88.3%). Using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (worst to best), respondents rated relations between surgery and cardiology with an average of 3.57 ± 0.9 points. Cardiologists rated surgeons with a mean score of 3.83 ± 0.8, while surgeons gave cardiologists a mean score of 3,92 ± 0.72. In addition, respondents provided numerous suggestions for improvement, which are discussed in detail, highlighting certain discrepancies in criteria between specialties. Implementing strategies based on the suggestions of professionals, together with a proactive approach to continuous improvement, could substantially enhance the quality of cardiovascular care in Spain.