Packer, Douglas

AbstractIntroductionCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently studied in randomized trials, observational and registry studies. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of future clinical studies on catheter ablation of AF, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.BackgroundStudies on catheter ablation of AF may benefit from well‐described definitions of endpoints and consistent methodology and documentation of outcomes related to efficacy, safety and cost‐effectiveness. The availably of new, innovative technologies warrants further consideration about their application and impact on study design and the choice of endpoints. Moreover, recent insights gained from AF ablation studies suggest a reconsideration of some methodological aspects.MethodsA panel of clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF and designing and conducting clinical studies developed an expert opinion on the design and endpoints for studies on catheter ablation of AF. Discussions within the expert panel with the aim to reach consensus on predefined topics were based on outcomes reported in the literature and experiences from recent clinical trials.ResultsA comprehensive set of recommendations is presented. Key elements include the documentation of clinical AF, medication during the study, repeated ablations and their effect on endpoint assessments, postablation blanking and the choice of rhythm‐related and other endpoints.ConclusionThis expert opinion provides guidance and promotes consistency regarding design of AF catheter ablation studies and identified aspects requiring further research to optimize study design and methodology.CONDENSED ABSTRACTRecent insights from studies on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the availability of new innovative technologies warrant reconsideration of methodological aspects related to study design and the choice and assessment of endpoints. This expert opinion, developed by clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF provides a comprehensive set of recommendations related to these methodological aspects. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of clinical studies, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.

Background: Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a highly morbid condition that can result after catheter ablation for PV isolation. We hypothesized that pulsed field ablation (PFA) would reduce PV stenosis risk and collateral injury compared with irrigated radiofrequency ablation (IRF). Methods: IRF and PFA deliveries were randomized in 8 dogs with 2 superior PVs ablated using one technology and 2 inferior PVs ablated using the other technology. IRF energy (25–30 W) or PFA was delivered (16 pulse trains) at each PV in a proximal and in a distal site. Contrast computed tomography scans were collected at 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12-week (termination) time points to monitor PV cross-sectional area at each PV ablation site. Results: Maximum average change in normalized cross-sectional area at 4-weeks was −46.1±45.1% post-IRF compared with −5.5±20.5% for PFA ( P ≤0.001). PFA-treated targets showed significantly fewer vessel restrictions compared with IRF ( P ≤0.023). Necropsy showed expansive PFA lesions without stenosis in the proximal PV sites, compared with more confined and often incomplete lesions after IRF. At the distal PV sites, only IRF ablations were grossly identified based on focal fibrosis. Mild chronic parenchymal hemorrhage was noted in 3 left superior PV lobes after IRF. Damage to vagus nerves as well as evidence of esophagus dilation occurred at sites associated with IRF. In contrast, no lung, vagal nerve, or esophageal injury was observed at PFA sites. Conclusions: PFA significantly reduced risk of PV stenosis compared with IRF postprocedure in a canine model. IRF also caused vagus nerve, esophageal, and lung injury while PFA did not.

Flex Tip Comparative AblationIntroductionNext‐generation catheters have been developed to reduce irrigation volume and preserve power delivery. A novel design uses a flexible tip (FlexAbility™ catheter) that directs flow to the contact surface. Because of recent safety issues with new catheters, we undertook a study in a canine heart with 3 irrigated catheters to compare efficacy and safety.MethodsEndocardial ablation was performed by 2 independent operators in 12 anesthetized canines with the FlexAbility (St. Jude Medical), ThermoCool™ (Biosense Webster), and ThermoCool™ SF (Biosense Webster) catheters. Endocardial RF lesions were delivered with each catheter in all 4 chambers of each animal for 52 ± 16 seconds. Each chamber was randomized to receive ablation from one catheter with recording of safety events. Cardiac pathology was performed with triphenyl tetrazolium chloride stain.ResultsAverage lesion dimensions were not significantly different between the 3 catheters. FlexAbility™ demonstrated a lower risk of steam pops relative to ThermoCool SF (P‐value = 0.013) despite equal mean power and radiofrequency time. High‐temperature generator shutdowns were observed with FlexAbility™ but not with either ThermoCool catheter. High‐temperature shutdowns were associated with larger average impedance drops (28.5 ohms vs. 19 ohms) without compromising lesion size.ConclusionsThe FlexAbility™ tip is safe and effective with no significant difference in lesion sizes compared to both standard ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF. FlexAbility™ has a significantly lower risk of steam pops compared to ThermoCool SF in a beating heart as defined predominantly by an abrupt rise of impedance.