Claudio Tondo

Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend pulmonary-vein isolation by means of catheter ablation as treatment for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Radiofrequency ablation is the most common method, and cryoballoon ablation is the second most frequently used technology. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine whether cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy end point in a time-to-event analysis was the first documented clinical failure (recurrence of atrial fibrillation, occurrence of atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, or repeat ablation) following a 90-day period after the index ablation. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as a hazard ratio of 1.43. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, or serious treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS A total of 762 patients underwent randomization (378 assigned to cryoballoon ablation and 384 assigned to radiofrequency ablation). The mean duration of follow-up was 1.5 years. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 138 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 143 in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 34.6% and 35.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary safety end point occurred in 40 patients in the cryoballoon group and in 51 patients in the radiofrequency group (1-year Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates, 10.2% and 12.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.18; P=0.24). CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, cryoballoon ablation was noninferior to radiofrequency ablation with respect to efficacy for the treatment of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to overall safety. (Funded by Medtronic; FIRE AND ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01490814.).

Periprocedural Stroke and Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation With Different Anticoagulation Management Results From the Role of Coumadin in Preventing Thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation (COMPARE) Randomized Trial

Background— Periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events are worrisome complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The periprocedural anticoagulation management could play a role in the incidence of these complications. Although ablation procedures performed without warfarin discontinuation seem to be associated with lower thromboembolic risk, no randomized study exists. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study assessing the role of continuous warfarin therapy in preventing periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events after radiofrequency catheter ablation. Patients with CHADS2 score ≥1 were included. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the off-warfarin or on-warfarin arm. The incidence of thromboembolic events in the 48 hours after ablation was the primary end point of the study. The study enrolled 1584 patients: 790 assigned to discontinue warfarin (group 1) and 794 assigned to continuous warfarin (group 2). No statistical difference in baseline characteristics was observed. There were 39 thromboembolic events (3.7% strokes [n=29] and 1.3% transient ischemic attacks [n=10]) in group 1: two events (0.87%) in patients with paroxysmal AF, 4 (2.3%) in patients with persistent AF, and 33 (8.5%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF. Only 2 strokes (0.25%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF were observed in group 2 (P<0.001). Warfarin discontinuation emerged as a strong predictor of periprocedural thromboembolism (odds ratio, 13; 95% confidence interval, 3.1–55.6; P<0.001). Conclusion— This is the first randomized study showing that performing catheter ablation of AF without warfarin discontinuation reduces the occurrence of periprocedural stroke and minor bleeding complications compared with bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01006876.

Endo-epicardial homogenization of the scar versus limited substrate ablation for the treatment of electrical storms in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES This study investigated the impact on recurrences of 2 different substrate approaches for the treatment of these arrhythmias. BACKGROUND Catheter ablation of electrical storms (ES) for ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) has shown moderate long-term efficacy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS Ninety-two consecutive patients (81% male, age 62 ± 13 years) with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ES underwent catheter ablation. Patients were treated either by confining the radiofrequency lesions to the endocardial surface with limited substrate ablation (Group 1, n = 49) or underwent endocardial and epicardial ablation of abnormal potentials within the scar (homogenization of the scar, Group 2, n = 43). Epicardial access was obtained in all Group 2 patients, whereas epicardial ablation was performed in 33% (14) of these patients. RESULTS Mean ejection fraction was 27 ± 5. During a mean follow-up of 25 ± 10 months, the VAs recurrence rate of any ventricular tachycardia (VTs) was 47% (23 of 49 patients) in Group 1 and 19% (8 of 43 patients) in Group 2 (log-rank p = 0.006). One patient in Group 1 and 1 patient in Group 2 died at follow-up for noncardiac reasons. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates that ablation using endo-epicardial homogenization of the scar significantly increases freedom from VAs in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.

Periprocedural Stroke and Bleeding Complications in Patients undergoing Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation with Different Anticoagulation Management: Results from the "COMPARE" Randomized Trial

Background— Periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events are worrisome complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The periprocedural anticoagulation management could play a role in the incidence of these complications. Although ablation procedures performed without warfarin discontinuation seem to be associated with lower thromboembolic risk, no randomized study exists. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study assessing the role of continuous warfarin therapy in preventing periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events after radiofrequency catheter ablation. Patients with CHADS2 score ≥1 were included. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the off-warfarin or on-warfarin arm. The incidence of thromboembolic events in the 48 hours after ablation was the primary end point of the study. The study enrolled 1584 patients: 790 assigned to discontinue warfarin (group 1) and 794 assigned to continuous warfarin (group 2). No statistical difference in baseline characteristics was observed. There were 39 thromboembolic events (3.7% strokes [n=29] and 1.3% transient ischemic attacks [n=10]) in group 1: two events (0.87%) in patients with paroxysmal AF, 4 (2.3%) in patients with persistent AF, and 33 (8.5%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF. Only 2 strokes (0.25%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF were observed in group 2 (P<0.001). Warfarin discontinuation emerged as a strong predictor of periprocedural thromboembolism (odds ratio, 13; 95% confidence interval, 3.1–55.6; P<0.001). Conclusion— This is the first randomized study showing that performing catheter ablation of AF without warfarin discontinuation reduces the occurrence of periprocedural stroke and minor bleeding complications compared with bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01006876.

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms, outcomes, and treatment of AF. For this reason, the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and update this Consensus Statement. Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF, as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation, this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS, EHRA, ECAS, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [SOLAECE]). The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies. The writing group is charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation procedures. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes, including definitions relevant to this topic. The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations: HRS, EHRA, ECAS, APHRS, SOLAECE, STS, ACC, American Heart Association (AHA), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias (Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [SOBRAC]). All the members of the writing group, as well as peer reviewers of the document, have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. All author and peer reviewer disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. In writing a consensus document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members. Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation. These recommendations were systematically balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80% of these members. The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period. Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially reviewed, commented on, edited, and endorsed the final document and recommendations. The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state, however, that this document is not a guideline. The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF, as well as recommendations for procedure performance, are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence (LOE) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements. A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks, and that AF ablation should be performed; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks, and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks, and that AF ablation may be considered; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended. The writing group reviewed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high-quality evidence from more than one randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses of high-quality randomized clinical trials, or one or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high-quality registry studies. The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate-quality evidence from one or more randomized clinical trials, or meta-analyses of moderate-quality randomized clinical trials. Level B-NR was used to denote moderate-quality evidence from one or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studies, or registry studies. This designation was also used to denote moderate-quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies. Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution, meta-analyses of such studies, or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects. Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group. Despite a large number of authors, the participation of several societies and professional organizations, and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately, this document is not intended as a guideline. Rather, the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF, and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF. Rather, the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF. A second major objective is to provide recommendations for designing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly. As this document was being prepared, further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way.

Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy: Arrhythmia-Free Survival after Endo-Epicardial Substrate Based Mapping and Ablation

Background— In patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy, freedom from ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) after endocardial ablation is limited. We compared the long-term freedom from recurrent VAs by using endocardial-alone ablation versus endo-epicardial substrate-based ablation. Methods and Results— Forty-nine patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy undergoing ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) were divided into 2 groups: endocardial-alone ablation (group 1, n=23) and endo-epicardial ablation (group 2, n=26). All patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Conventional and 3D mappings were used to determine the mechanism of induced VTs and to identify area of “scar” or “abnormal” myocardium. All critical sites responsible for VTs and points with “abnormal” potential were targeted for ablation from endocardium (group 1) or from both endocardium and epicardium (group 2). The procedural end point was noninducibility of sustained, monomorphic VT with isoproterenol. The presence of frequent premature ventricular contractions at the end of ablation was recorded. Patients were followed up by ECG, Holter, and ICD interrogation. After a follow-up of at least 3 years, freedom from VAs or ICD therapy was 52.2% (12/23) in group 1 and 84.6% (22/26) in group 2 (P=0.029), with 21.7% (5/23) and 69.2% (18/26) patients off antiarrhythmic drugs (P<0.001), respectively. Compared with patients with no premature ventricular contractions after ablation, patients with frequent premature ventricular contractions after ablation were more likely to have VA recurrence/ICD therapy [3/33 (9%) versus 12/16 (75%); log-rank P<0.001]. Conclusions— An endo-epicardial–based ablation strategy achieves higher long-term freedom from recurrent VAs off antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy when compared with endocardial-alone ablation. The presence of ≥10 premature ventricular contractions per minute after ablation is associated with more VA recurrence.Background— In patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy, freedom from ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) after endocardial ablation is limited. We compared the long-term freedom from recurrent VAs by using endocardial-alone ablation versus endo-epicardial substrate-based ablation. Methods and Results— Forty-nine patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy undergoing ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) were divided into 2 groups: endocardial-alone ablation (group 1, n=23) and endo-epicardial ablation (group 2, n=26). All patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Conventional and 3D mappings were used to determine the mechanism of induced VTs and to identify area of “scar” or “abnormal” myocardium. All critical sites responsible for VTs and points with “abnormal” potential were targeted for ablation from endocardium (group 1) or from both endocardium and epicardium (group 2). The procedural end point was noninducibility of sustained, monomorphic VT with isoproterenol. The presence of frequent premature ventricular contractions at the end of ablation was recorded. Patients were followed up by ECG, Holter, and ICD interrogation. After a follow-up of at least 3 years, freedom from VAs or ICD therapy was 52.2% (12/23) in group 1 and 84.6% (22/26) in group 2 ( P =0.029), with 21.7% (5/23) and 69.2% (18/26) patients off antiarrhythmic drugs ( P <0.001), respectively. Compared with patients with no premature ventricular contractions after ablation, patients with frequent premature ventricular contractions after ablation were more likely to have VA recurrence/ICD therapy [3/33 (9%) versus 12/16 (75%); log-rank P <0.001]. Conclusions— An endo-epicardial–based ablation strategy achieves higher long-term freedom from recurrent VAs off antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy when compared with endocardial-alone ablation. The presence of ≥10 premature ventricular contractions per minute after ablation is associated with more VA recurrence.

Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device: Results From the AATAC Multicenter Randomized Trial

Background— Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to amiodarone (AMIO) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is unknown. Methods and Results— This was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with persistent AF, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 months were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo CA for AF (group 1, n=102) or receive AMIO (group 2, n=101). Recurrence of AF was the primary end point. All-cause mortality and unplanned hospitalization were the secondary end points. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 24 months. At the end of follow-up, 71 (70%; 95% confidence interval, 60%–78%) patients in group 1 were recurrence free after an average of 1.4±0.6 procedures in comparison with 34 (34%; 95% confidence interval, 25%–44%) in group 2 (log-rank P<0.001). The success rate of CA in the different centers after a single procedure ranged from 29% to 61%. After adjusting for covariates in the multivariable model, AMIO therapy was found to be significantly more likely to fail (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–4.3; P<0.001) than CA. Over the 2-year follow-up, the unplanned hospitalization rate was (32 [31%] in group 1 and 58 [57%] in group 2; P<0.001), showing 45% relative risk reduction (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.76). A significantly lower mortality was observed in CA (8 [8%] versus AMIO (18 [18%]; P=0.037). Conclusions— This multicenter randomized study shows that CA of AF is superior to AMIO in achieving freedom from AF at long-term follow-up and reducing unplanned hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure and persistent AF. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00729911.

Why a large tip electrode makes a deeper radiofrequency lesion: effects of increase in electrode cooling and electrode-tissue interface area.

Increase in RF Lesion Depth with Larger Electrode. Introduction: Increasing electrode size allows an increase in radiofrequency lesion depth. The purpose of this study was to examine the roles of added electrode cooling and electrode‐tissue interface area in producing deeper lesions.

Pulmonary Vein Vestibule Ablation for the Control of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Impaired Left Ventricular Function

Introduction: Congestive heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are frequently linked, and when associated produce additive deleterious effects. In this prospective study, the effects of catheter ablation for AF in patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function are presented.

Atrial fibrillation and the risk of incident dementia: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The risk of cerebrovascular embolic events with atrial fibrillation (AF) is potentially linked to an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia. However, epidemiologic studies exploring the association between AF and incident dementia have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of observational studies specifically designed to evaluate the prospective relationship between AF and incident dementia. METHODS We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, BioMedCentral, Embase, Cardiosource, clinicaltrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1980 to May 2012). No language restriction was applied. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify population-based studies that prospectively evaluated the association between AF and the incidence of dementia in patients not suffering an acute stroke and with normal cognitive function at baseline, providing the hazard ratio (HR) obtained in multiple Cox regression analyses, and adjusted for all confounding variables. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration, and extracted patient and study characteristics and the adjusted HR of incident dementia with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of patients with AF vs those without AF. RESULTS Eight studies with 77,668 patients were included in the analysis. All studies had a prospective observational design and included elderly patients (mean age range 61-84 years) with normal cognitive function at baseline, of whom 11,700 (15%) had AF. After a mean follow-up of 7.7 ± 9.1 years (range 1.8-30 years), 4773 of 73,321 (6.5%) patients developed dementia. Two studies did not report the rates of dementia at follow-up but reported the adjusted HR and were included in the pooled analysis. At pooled analysis adjusted for baseline confounders and covariates, AF was independently associated with increased risk of incident dementia (HR = 1.42 [95% CI 1.17-1.72], P <.001). CONCLUSION AF is independently associated with increased risk of dementia. Patients with AF should be periodically screened for dementia, which should be included among the outcomes assessed in AF treatment trials.