Akoum, Nazem

Abstract Background and Aims Stroke and systemic embolism are recognized but poorly characterized complications of atrial fibrillation (AF) and left atrial flutter (AFL) catheter ablation. Their incidence, outcomes, and procedural associations remain insufficiently defined. Methods Retrospective global registry was initiated by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Committee. A secure database captured data from ablation centres worldwide on general AF and left AFL ablation activity, as well as detailed information on patients with symptomatic embolic events between 2017 and 2024. Results Overall, 204 centres reported 335 743 ablation procedures and 550 embolic events (incidence 0.16%). Centre-level rate ranged from 0% to 3.1%. Most events were cerebral (94%), followed by peripheral (5%), and combined (1%). Coronary air embolism accounted for 62% of all peripheral events. Intraprocedural events occurred in 93 patients (17%), within 72 h in 357 (78%) and beyond 72 h in 100 (22%); 128 cases (23%) were diagnosed after hospital discharge. Nonparoxysmal AF (0.23% vs 0.15%; P < .001), centre experience, and ablation energy source (radiofrequency, 0.16%; cryoballoon, 0.16%; pulsed field ablation, 0.25%; laserballoon, 0.88%; P < .001) were associated with embolic risk. Median NIHSS score after stroke was 4 (interquartile range, 2–9). Three-month follow-up was available for 518 patients with embolism (95%): 181 (35%) had sequelae and 16 (3%) died. Conclusions Symptomatic embolic events are infrequent but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most events occur early, though a substantial proportion arise later. Higher event rates were observed with laser and possibly with pulsed field ablation. A greater centre experience was associated with a lower embolism incidence.

AbstractBackgroundHigh‐power short‐duration (HPSD) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with a power of 40–50 W was proved to be safe and effective. Very high‐power short‐duration (vHPSD) AF ablation is a novel method using >50 W to obtain more durable AF ablation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vHPSD ablation compared with HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation.MethodsA literature search for studies that reported AF ablation outcomes, including short‐term freedom from atrial arrhythmia, first‐pass isolation (FPI) rate, procedure time, and major complications, was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant studies were included in this analysis. A random‐effects model of network meta‐analysis and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank the treatment for all outcomes.ResultsA total of 29 studies with 9721 patients were included in the analysis. According to the SUCRA analysis, HPSD ablation had the highest probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. Point estimation showed an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–1.9) between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation and an odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.78–2.2) between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. While the odds ratio of FPI between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.5–8.9), the odds ratio between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 2.2 (95% CI: 0.61–8.6). The procedure times of vHPSD and HPSD ablations were comparable and, therefore, shorter than that of conventional power ablation. Major complications were low in all techniques.ConclusionvHPSD ablation did not yield higher efficacy than HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. With the safety concern, vHPSD ablation outcomes were comparable with those of other techniques.

AbstractIntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly performed worldwide. As comfort with AF ablation increases, the procedure is increasingly used in patients that are older and in those with more comorbidities. However, it is not well established whether AF ablation in the elderly, especially those >75 years old, has comparable safety and efficacy to younger populations.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety profiles in patients older than 75 years undergoing AF ablation with younger patients.MethodsDatabases from EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane, were searched from inception through September 2021. Studies that compared the success rates in AF catheter ablation and all complications rates between patients who were older vs under 75 years were included. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.ResultsTwenty‐seven observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 363,542 patients who underwent AF ablation. Comparing patients older than 75 years old to younger patients, there was no difference in the success of ablation rates between elderly and younger patients (pooled OR 0.85: 95% CI:0.69–1.05, p = .131). On the other hand, AF ablation in the elderly was associated with higher complication rates (pooled OR 1.42: 95% CI:1.21–1.68, p < .001).ConclusionAs AF ablation is expanded to elderly populations, our study found that AF ablation success rates were similar in both elderly and younger patients. However, older patients experience higher rates of complications that should be considered when offering the procedure and as a means to improve outcomes with future innovations.