Key result
Higher ablation index predicts acute conduction block during SVC isolation, averaging 390 at blocked sites.
Why the study?
AI-guided high-power ablation is a novel strategy for PVI, but whether it is feasible and safe for superior vena cava isolation after PVI in patients with AF remained to be determined.
Does ablation index-guided high-power ablation predict acute conduction block during superior vena cava isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=53)
No
Does ablation index-guided high-power ablation predict acute conduction block during superior vena cava isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Ablation index-guided high-power ablation (45 W) is feasible for superior vena cava isolation, with different optimal AI cut-offs for lateral (345) and non-lateral (379) walls to achieve acute conduction block.
AI may inform targets for acute SVC isolation success in AF; extends AI data but leaves open prospective outcome trials.
Background The strategy of ablation index (AI)-guided high-power ablation seems to be a novel strategy for performing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). An AI-guided high-power ablation strategy was used in this study to determine whether superior vena cava isolation (SVCI) after PVI was feasible and safe for patients with AF. Methods Data from 53 patients with AF were collected. Mapping and ablation of SVC were performed. The applied power was set at 45 W and the procedure was guided by AI. The SVC was divided into six segments in a cranial view. The RF applications and AI values in different segments were compared and analyzed. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of AI value for predicting segment block was evaluated. Results Electrical SVCIs were successfully achieved in all patients. SVCI was performed by segment ablation in most cases, with RF applications in different segments. The mean AI value in non-lateral walls was higher than that of the lateral wall (392 ± 28 vs. 371 ± 37, P < 0.001). Acutely blocked sites had significantly larger AI values compared with no-blocked sites (390 ± 30 vs. 343 ± 23, P < 0.001). The optimal AI cut-off value for non-lateral segments was 379 (sensitivity: 75.9%, specificity: 100%) and for lateral segments was 345 (sensitivity: 82.3%, specificity: 100%). Conclusion The AI values were predictive of the acute conduction block of SVCI. With AI values of 345 and 379, respectively, conduction block was achieved in the lateral walls at a lower level than in the non-lateral walls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=53). Ablation index-guided high-power ablation vs. No-blocked sites (internal comparison) was evaluated on Mean ablation index (AI) value for acute conduction block (p=<0.001). Ablation index values were predictive of acute conduction block during superior vena cava isolation, with acutely blocked sites having significantly larger values than no-blocked sites (390 vs 343).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: