Why the study?
Catheter ablation strategies for AF face a delicate balance between preventing pulmonary vein reconnection with more energy and preventing complications with less energy.
Does the CLOSE protocol improve the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the CLOSE protocol improve the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The CLOSE protocol provides a standardized radiofrequency ablation strategy aiming to balance durable pulmonary vein isolation with safety in patients with atrial fibrillation.
May support CLOSE protocol for PVI in AF; extends summarized studies but leaves randomized confirmation open.
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common treatment strategy in patients with drug-resistant, symptomatic AF. In patients with paroxysmal and short-standing persistent AF, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is often enough to prevent recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA). Point-by-point encircling of the PVs with radiofrequency (RF) applications, together with cryoballoon ablation, have been the mainstay strategies for the last 10 to 20 years. Each of these strategies, however, suffers from the delicate balance between preventing PV reconnection, on the one hand (toward more energy), and preventing (mainly esophageal) complications (toward less energy), on the other. The CLOSE protocol was developed as an RF ablation strategy that would result in the safe creation of durable isolation leading to improved outcomes. Basically, the aim of the protocol is to enclose the pulmonary veins with stable, contiguous (intertag distance, ITD ≤ 6 mm) and optimized lesions (35 Watts, W, RF applications up to ablation index targets of ≥400 and ≥550 at the posterior and anterior wall). In this review, we describe the background of the CLOSE protocol and the studies from the St Jan Bruges research group on procedural performance, efficacy, and safety of the CLOSE protocol in (a) single-center prospective PILOT study (CLOSE-PILOT), (b) a single-center prospective study with continuous rhythm monitoring (CLOSE to CURE), (c) a database of systematic esophageal endoscopic studies, (d) a multicenter prospective study (VISTAX), and (e) the CLOSE database (comprising > 400 patients). We also discuss the results of the randomized POWER-AF study comparing conventional CLOSE to high power CLOSE (up to 50 W). Finally, we discuss the performance, safety, and efficacy of the CLOSE protocol in light of the emerging changes in the field of catheter ablation being ultra-short high-power ablation and electroporation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lycke et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: