Abstract 13916: Patient Outcomes 6 Months Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation With a Novel RF Catheter: Initial Data From NEwTON AF
Introduction: The combination of local impedance (LI), a direct measure of electrical resistance at the catheter tip, and contact force (CF) may facilitate treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). This trial is designed to examine the safety and effectiveness of a novel RF catheter that allows measurement of both LI and CF. Hypothesis: Demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a novel radiofrequency catheter with LI and CF for treatment of drug refractory, recurrent, symptomatic Paroxysmal AF (PAF). Methods: NEwTON AF is a multi-center, global, prospective, single arm study. Patients received index treatment for PAF with the study catheter. The present 6-month endpoint analysis was prospectively planned. Results: The study treated 299 patients at 45 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. Patients were 39.5% female with a mean age of 62yrs (±12), and had a mean LVEF of 59% and an LA diameter of 3.9cm. Procedure time, LA dwell, and fluoroscopy times were 166, 136, and 15 minutes, respectively. High-power short-duration (HSPD, 45-50W) was exclusively used in 210 cases, which had notably shorter procedure times than the 82 cases that used conventional power, 148 vs 208 min, respectively. Acute procedural success was observed in 98.3% of cases. As of 6 months, freedom from documented recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia was 79.9% (Figure). Recurrence in relation to LI shows that pts with a 20Ω LI drop (in at least 60% of lesions) had better 6m outcomes (84.2% vs 73.3, p=0.04). The freedom from safety event rate at 30d was 96.0%; events included pericarditis (6), access complications (2), pulmonary edema (2), embolism (2), cerebrovascular accident (1), tamponade (1). Pericarditis was higher in pts with a history of COVID at enrollment, 16.3% vs 5.9%, p=0.025. Conclusions: This data suggests that patient outcomes and safety for this novel catheter are promising. Further data from this study, including 12m outcomes, and detailed analysis of local impedance data are forthcoming.
Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: PULSED AF Pivotal Trial
Background: Pulsed field ablation uses electrical pulses to cause nonthermal irreversible electroporation and induce cardiac cell death. Pulsed field ablation may have effectiveness comparable to traditional catheter ablation while preventing thermally mediated complications. Methods: The PULSED AF pivotal study (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF) was a prospective, global, multicenter, nonrandomized, paired single-arm study in which patients with paroxysmal (n=150) or persistent (n=150) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were treated with pulsed field ablation. All patients were monitored for 1 year using weekly and symptomatic transtelephonic monitoring; 3-, 6-, and 12-month ECGs; and 6- and 12-month 24-hour Holter monitoring. The primary effectiveness end point was freedom from a composite of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic escalation through 12 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure. The primary safety end point was freedom from a composite of serious procedure- and device-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the primary end points. Results: Pulsed field ablation was shown to be effective at 1 year in 66.2% (95% CI, 57.9 to 73.2) of patients with paroxysmal AF and 55.1% (95% CI, 46.7 to 62.7) of patients with persistent AF. The primary safety end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 4.6) in both the paroxysmal and persistent AF cohorts. Conclusions: PULSED AF demonstrated a low rate of primary safety adverse events (0.7%) and provided effectiveness consistent with established ablation technologies using a novel irreversible electroporation energy to treat patients with AF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04198701.
Reduction in Pulmonary Vein Stenosis and Collateral Damage With Pulsed Field Ablation Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation in a Canine Model
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.
2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation
BackgroundPreprocedure systemic antibiotic prophylaxis reduces infections in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantations. Whether pocket irrigation with antibiotic solution offers any advantage over saline solution in CIED implantation is unknown.MethodsRecords from 327 consecutive patients who underwent CIED implantation by three operators from February 2011 to January 2014 were reviewed. From February 2011 to January 2012, the antibiotic solution was used for pocket irrigation; from February 2012 to January 2014, saline solution was used. All patients received preprocedural IV antibiotics. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, lab data, and occurrence of any pocket infection postimplant were collected.ResultsThere were 118 and 209 patients in the antibiotic solution and saline solution group, respectively. A total of four (1.2%) patients had CIED infection: two in the antibiotic solution group and two in the saline solution group. Median time to infection from implant date was 81.5 ± 35 days. Two patients (50%) had infection after first device implantation. Of the four patients, one had positive blood culture, three had positive pocket cultures, one had lead vegetation, one underwent pocket exploration, and all of them had devices/leads extracted, with reimplantation on the contralateral side. No mortality was observed due to infectious complications.ConclusionWhen compared to pocket irrigation in the antibiotic solution group, the saline solution group was not associated with increased incidence of infectious complications after CIED implantation. The use of saline solution pocket irrigation alone may be used in CIED pocket irrigation periprocedurally. Further evaluation in larger randomized trials is needed.