Why the study?
Improved signal detection facilitating more robust electrical isolation during PVI for AF might improve outcomes, but whether high-density mapping provides clinical benefit over conventional mapping was unclear.
Does high-density mapping guided pulmonary vein isolation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to conventional 3D mapping in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does high-density mapping guided pulmonary vein isolation improve freedom from atrial fibrillation compared to conventional 3D mapping in patients with atrial fibrillation?
High-density mapping for pulmonary vein isolation is safe and significantly reduces fluoroscopy time and radiation dose, but does not improve mid-term freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional mapping.
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) as interventional treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) aims to eliminate arrhythmogenic triggers from the PVs. Improved signal detection facilitating a more robust electrical isolation might be associated with a better outcome. This retrospective cohort study compared PVI procedures using a novel high-density mapping system (HDM) with improved signal detection vs. age- and sex-matched PVIs using a conventional 3D mapping system (COM). Endpoints comprised freedom from AF and procedural parameters. In total, 108 patients (mean age 63.9 ± 11.2 years, 56.5% male, 50.9% paroxysmal AF) were included (n = 54 patients/group). Our analysis revealed that HDM was not superior regarding freedom from AF (mean follow-up of 494.7 ± 26.2 days), with one- and two-year AF recurrence rates of 38.9%/46.5% (HDM) and 38.9%/42.2% (COM), respectively. HDM was associated with reduction in fluoroscopy times (18.8 ± 10.6 vs. 29.8 ± 13.4 min; p < 0.01) and total radiation dose (866.0 ± 1003.3 vs. 1731.2 ± 1978.4 cGy; p < 0.01) compared to the COM group. HDM was equivalent but not superior to COM with respect to clinical outcome after PVI and resulted in reduced fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. These results suggest that HDM-guided PVI is effective and safe for AF ablation. Potential benefits in comparison to conventional mapping systems, e.g. arrhythmia recurrence rates, have to be addressed in randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siebermair et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: