Key result
Additional CFAE ablation after PVI improved the success rate of single ablation compared to PVI alone (68.8% vs 60.4%; OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.07-2.20; P=0.02), especially in persistent or permanent AF.
Why the study?
Does PVI plus CFAE ablation improve ablation success rates compared to PVI alone in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,525)
Does PVI plus CFAE ablation improve ablation success rates compared to PVI alone in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Adding CFAE ablation to PVI improves ablation success rates in patients with persistent or permanent AF without increasing complications, but does not show significant benefit in paroxysmal AF.
Supports adjunctive CFAE ablation after PVI in persistent AF to raise single-procedure success; confirms benefit across randomized trials in meta-analysis.
It has been a decade since the complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) were first established following the publication of Nademanee's standards. However, the status and focus of CFAE research are unclear, as is the efficacy of additional CFAE ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF). This literature review and meta-analysis were designed to determine the status of CFAE research and the efficacy and complications of CFAE ablation alone, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone and PVI plus CFAE ablation in AF. With the assistance from reference librarians and investigators trained in systematic review, we conducted a literature search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Wiley Blackwell and Web of Knowledge, using “complex fractionated atrial electrograms” for MeSH and keyword search. The literature on CFAEs increased from 2007, mainly focusing on mapping studies, with mechanism studies increasing significantly from 2012. Fifteen trials with 1525 patients were qualified for our meta-analysis. Success rates were as follows. Overall (P < 0.001): CFAE ablation alone, 23.5–26.2%; PVI, 64.7%; PVI plus CFAE ablation, 67.0%. Single ablation: PVI, 60.4%; PVI plus CFAEs, 68.8% (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07–2.20, P = 0.02). Re-ablation: PVI, 69.0%; PVI plus CFAEs, 77.2% (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06–2.24, P = 0.02). Paroxysmal AF: PVI, 76.7%; PVI plus CFAEs, 79.1% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79–1.81, P = 0.39). Persistent or permanent AF: PVI, 47.9%; PVI plus CFAEs, 58.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.13–2.24, P = 0.008). Complication rates: PVI, 2.6%; PVI plus CFAEs, 3.4% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.58–2.57, P = 0.61). In the literature, CFAE mapping studies preceded mechanism studies. CFAE ablation alone is insufficient for the treatment of AF. Additional CFAE ablation after adequate PVI or PVI plus linear ablation improves the outcome of single ablation and re-ablation without increasing complications, especially in persistent or permanent AF. There are insufficient data to support a similar improvement in paroxysmal AF or inducible AF after PVI for paroxysmal AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,525). PVI plus CFAE ablation vs. PVI alone was evaluated on Success rate of single ablation (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.20, p=0.02). Additional CFAE ablation after PVI improved the success rate of single ablation compared to PVI alone (68.8% vs 60.4%; OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.07-2.20; P=0.02), especially in persistent or permanent AF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: