English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aims  Despite recent advances in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR), and AF recurrence remain significantly high. Ablation index (AI) is a new method incorporating contact force, time, and power that should optimize procedural outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AI-guided catheter ablation compared to a non-AI-guided approach. Methods and results  A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE (via PubMED), EMBASE, COCHRANE, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) databases (from inception to 1 July 2019). We included only studies that compared AI-guided with non-AI-guided catheter ablation of AF. Eleven studies reporting on 2306 patients were identified. Median follow-up period was 12 months. Ablation index-guided ablation had a significant shorter procedural time (141.0 vs. 152.8 min, P = 0.01; I2 = 90%), ablation time (21.8 vs. 32.0 min, P &amp;lt; 0.00001; I2 = 0%), achieved first-pass isolation more frequently [odds ratio (OR) = 0.09, 95%CI 0.04–0.21; 93.4% vs. 62.9%, P &amp;lt; 0.001; I2 = 58%] and was less frequently associated with acute PVR (OR = 0.37, 95%CI 0.18–0.75; 18.0% vs 35.0%; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%). Importantly, atrial arrhythmia relapse post-blanking was significantly lower in AI compared to non-AI catheter ablation (OR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.25–0.66; 11.8% vs. 24.9%, P = 0.0003; I2 = 35%). Finally, there was no difference in complication rate between AI and non-AI ablation, with the number of cardiac tamponade events in the AI group less being numerically lower (OR = 0.69, 95%CI 0.30–1.60, 1.6% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.39; I2 = 0%). Conclusions  These data suggest that AI-guided catheter ablation is associated with increased efficacy of AF ablation, while preserving a comparable safety profile to non-AI catheter ablation.

Efficacy and safety of ablation index-guided catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis