Research Needs and Priorities for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop.
- 作者列表："Al-Khatib SM","Benjamin EJ","Buxton AE","Calkins H","Chung MK","Curtis AB","Desvigne-Nickens P","Jais P","Packer DL","Piccini JP","Rosenberg Y","Russo AM","Wang PJ","Cooper LS","Go AS","Workshop Collaborators.
:Catheter ablation has brought major advances in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). As evidenced by multiple randomized trials, AF catheter ablation can reduce the risk of recurrent AF and improve quality of life. In some studies, AF ablation significantly reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations. Despite the existing data on AF catheter ablation, numerous knowledge gaps remain concerning this intervention. This report is based on a recent virtual workshop convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify key research opportunities in AF ablation. We outline knowledge gaps related to emerging technologies, the relationship between cardiac structure and function and the success of AF ablation in patient subgroups in whom clinical benefit from ablation varies, and potential platforms to advance clinical research in this area. This report also considers the potential value and challenges of a sham ablation randomized trial. Prioritized research opportunities are identified and highlighted to empower relevant stakeholders to collaborate in designing and conducting effective, cost-efficient, and transformative research to optimize the use and outcomes of AF ablation.
: 导管消融为房颤 (AF) 患者的管理带来了重大进展。多个随机试验证明，AF 导管消融可以降低复发 AF 的风险，提高生活质量。在一些研究中，AF 消融显著减少心血管住院。尽管已有 AF 导管消融的数据，但关于这种干预仍有许多知识空白。本报告基于最近由国家心肺血液研究所召开的虚拟研讨会，以确定 AF 消融的关键研究机会。我们概述了与新兴技术、心脏结构和功能之间的关系以及房颤消融成功相关的知识差距，在消融临床获益不同的患者亚组中, 以及推进该领域临床研究的潜在平台。本报告还考虑了假消融随机试验的潜在价值和挑战。确定并强调优先研究机会，使相关利益相关者能够合作设计和开展有效、经济高效和变革性的研究，以优化 AF 消融的使用和结果。
METHODS:AIMS:Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using ablation index (AI) incorporates stability, contact force (CF), time, and power. The CLOSE protocol combines AI and ≤6 mm interlesion distance. Safety concerns are raised about surround flow ablation catheters (STSF). To compare safety and effectiveness of an atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy using AI vs. CLOSE protocol using STSF.,METHODS AND RESULTS:First cluster was treated using AI and second cluster using CLOSE. Procedural data, safety, and recurrence of any atrial tachycardia (AT) or AF >30 s were collected prospectively. All Classes 1c and III anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) were stopped after the blanking period. In total, all 215 consecutive patients [AI: 121 (paroxysmal: n = 97), CLOSE: n = 94 (paroxysmal: n = 74)] were included. Pulmonary vein isolation was reached in all in similar procedure duration (CLOSE: 107 ± 25 vs. AI: 102 ± 24 min; P = 0.1) and similar radiofrequency time (CLOSE: 36 ± 11 vs. AI: 37 ± 8 min; P = 0.4) but first pass isolation was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [left veins: 90% vs. 80%; P < 0.05 and right veins: 84% vs. 73%; P < 0.05]. Twelve-month off-AAD freedom of AF/AT was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [79% (paroxysmal: 85%) vs. 64% (paroxysmal: 68%); P < 0.05]. Only four patients (2%) without recurrence were on AAD during follow-up. Major complications were similar (CLOSE: 2.1% vs. AI: 2.5%; P = 0.87).,CONCLUSION:The CLOSE protocol is more effective than a PVI approach solely using AI, especially in paroxysmal AF. In this off-AAD study, 79% of patients were free from AF/AT during 12-month follow-up. The STSF catheter appears to be safe using conventional CLOSE targets.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the role of driver mechanism and the effect of electrogram dispersion-guided driver mapping and ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF) at different stages of progression.,METHODS:A total of 256 consecutive patients with AF who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus driver ablation or conventional ablation were divided into three groups: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF; group A, n = 51); persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF; group B, n = 38); and long standing-persistent atrial fibrillation (LS-PsAF; group C, n = 39). PVI was performed with the guidance of the ablation index. The electrogram dispersion was analyzed for driver mapping.,RESULTS:The most prominent driver regions were at roof (28.0%), posterior wall (17.6%), and bottom (21.3%). From patients with PAF to those with PsAF and LS-PsAF: the complexity of extra-pulmonary vein (PV) drivers including distribution, mean number, and area of dispersion region increased (P < .001). Patients who underwent driver ablation vs conventional ablation had higher procedural AF termination rate (76.6% vs 28.1%; P < .001). With AF progression, the termination rate gradually decreased from group A to group C, and the role of PVI in AF termination was also gradually weakened from group A to group C (39.6%, 7.4%, and 4.3%; P < .001) in patients with driver ablation. At the end of the follow-up, the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance was higher in patients with driver ablation than those with conventional ablation (89.1% vs 70.3%; P < .001).,CONCLUSION:The formation of extra-PV drivers provides an important mechanism for AF maintenance with their complexity increasing with AF progression. Electrogram dispersion-guided driver ablation appears to be an efficient adjunctive approach to PVI for AF treatment.
METHODS:PURPOSE:Whether or not pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus left atrial posterior wall isolation (PWI) using contact force (CF) sensing improves the ablation outcome for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. This study compared the outcome of PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation for persistent AF with/without CF sensing. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study analyzed 148 propensity score-matched persistent AF patients (median duration of persistent AF, 8 months (interquartile range, 3-24 months); left atrial diameter, 43 ± 7 mm) undergoing PVI plus PWI and ablation of non-PV triggers provoked by high-dose isoproterenol, including 74 with CF-sensing catheters (CF group) and 74 with conventional catheters (non-CF group). PVI plus PWI with no additional ablation but cavotricuspid isthmus ablation was performed without non-PV triggers in 48 CF patients (65%) and 54 non-CF patients (73%) (P = 0.38). In all other patients, we performed additional ablation of provoked non-PV triggers. RESULTS:The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence of antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after the single procedure was higher in the CF group than in the non-CF group (85 vs. 70%, log-rank P = 0.030). A multivariable analysis revealed that using CF sensing and non-inducibility of AF from a non-PV trigger after PVI and PWI were significantly associated with a reduced rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with non-CF sensing, PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation using CF-sensing catheters for persistent AF can reduce the rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence.