Open AccessComparison of ablation outcomes of the second ablation procedure for recurrent atrial fibrillation using an ultra‐high‐resolution mapping system and conventional mappings system
Author(s) -
Masuda Masaharu,
Asai Mitsutoshi,
Iida Osamu,
Okamoto Shin,
Ishihara Takayuki,
Nanto Kiyonori,
Kanda Takashi,
Tsujimura Takuya,
Matsuda Yasuhiro,
Okuno Shota,
Tsuji Aki,
Mano Toshiaki
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.23248
Subject(s) - medicine , ablation , atrial fibrillation , cardiology , catheter ablation , atrial tachycardia , radiofrequency ablation
Background The utility of an ultra‐high‐resolution electroanatomical mapping system (UHR‐EAM, Rhythmia) for repeat atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has not been evaluated. Hypothesis A second AF ablation procedure performed using UHR‐EAM may demonstrate different outcomes compared with that using a conventional electroanatomical mapping system (C‐EAM, CARTO3). Method This observational study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent a second AF ablation procedure using UHR‐EAM (n = 103) and C‐EAM (n = 153). The second ablation procedure included re‐isolation of reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs) and elimination of clinical or induced non‐PV AF triggers and atrial tachycardia (AT). Other empirical ablations were additionally conducted at the discretion of the operators. Results Re‐isolation of PVs was achieved in 196 patients who had ≥1 left atrial‐PV reconnection. The elimination rate of AT was higher in the UHR‐EAM group than the C‐EAM group (87% vs 65%, P = .040), while that of non‐PV AF triggers was similar (63% vs 63%, P = 1.00). The UHR‐EAM demonstrated shorter radiofrequency application time (21.8 ± 16.8 vs 28.0 ± 21.3 minutes, P = .017), but longer fluoroscopic time (26.2 ± 12.6 vs 21.4 ± 9.3 minutes, P = .0001). No severe complication developed. The total 1‐year AF/AT‐free survival rates were similar between the two groups (off AADs, 59.2% vs 56.2%, P = .62; on AADs, 65.0% vs 69.3%, P = .49). Conclusion The efficacy and safety outcomes of repeat AF ablation using UHR‐EAM was comparable to those using C‐EAM.