Premium
A multicentered evaluation of ablation at higher power guided by ablation index: Establishing ablation targets for pulmonary vein isolation
Author(s) -
Dhillon Gurpreet,
Ahsan Syed,
Honarbakhsh Shohreh,
Lim Wei,
Baca Marco,
Graham Adam,
Srinivasan Neil,
Sawhney Vinit,
Sporton Simon,
Schilling Richard J.,
Chow Anthony,
Ginks Matthew,
Sohal Manav,
Gallagher Mark M.,
Hunter Ross J.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.13813
Subject(s) - medicine , ablation , pulmonary vein , cardiology , atrial fibrillation , catheter ablation , radiofrequency ablation , surgery , nuclear medicine
Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using high power delivered by SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheters guided by ablation index (AI) was evaluated in a multicenter registry. Methods Patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PVI with STSF catheters using 30 W on the posterior wall and 40 W elsewhere. AI targets were 350 posterior walls and 450 elsewhere. Procedures were compared with controls using conventionally irrigated contact force‐sensing catheters using conventional powers (25 W posterior wall and 30 W elsewhere) guided by force‐time integral (no agreed targets). The waiting period of 30 minutes was observed before adenosine administration to assess acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection. Results One hundred patients from four centers were included: 50 patients in the high power ablation index (HPAI) group and 50 controls. Procedure time was 22% shorter in the HPAI group (156 [133.8‐179] vs 199 [178.5‐227] minutes; P < 0.001). Duration of the radiofrequency application was 37% shorter in the HPAI group (27.2 [21.5‐35.8] vs 43.2 [35.1‐52.1] minutes; P < 0.001). Acute PV reconnection was reduced (28 of 200 [14%] vs 48 of 200 [24%] veins; P = 0.015). Reconnection was predicted by a largest interlesion distance greater than 6 mm, a lesion with impedance drop less than 2.5 Ω, contact force less than 6 g, or less than 68% of the regional AI target (all P < 0.001). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year off antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure was 78% in the HPAI group vs 64% in the control group ( P = 0.186). Conclusion High‐powered ablation guided by AI was safe and led to shorter procedure times with reduced acute PV reconnection compared with conventional ablation.