AI-guided CTI ablation significantly reduced total RF duration (180 vs 274 s, p<0.001) and procedural time compared to conventional 40 W ablation, with similar first-line success rates.
Observational (n=148)
Does an AI-guided ablation protocol improve procedural efficiency compared to a conventional protocol in patients undergoing CTI ablation?
An AI-guided CTI ablation protocol using 50 W significantly reduces radiofrequency duration and procedural time without compromising acute success or safety compared to a conventional 40 W protocol.
Absolute Event Rate: 82.2% vs 84.7%
p-value: p=0.81
ABSTRACT Introduction AutoMark Index (AI) is a novel ablation algorithm integrating contact force (CF), radiofrequency (RF) current, and application duration to provide real‐time lesion formation feedback. Data of AI using a flexible‐tip RF ablation catheter for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation remain limited. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AI‐guided CTI ablation. Methods Consecutive 148 patients undergoing CTI ablation with a CF‐sensing flexible‐tip ablation catheter were included. Outcomes using an AI‐guided protocol (50 W, targeting AI of 50; AI‐50 group, 62 patients) were compared with a conventional protocol (40 W for 20 s; 40‐W group, 86 patients). Results The first‐line success rate showed no difference between the two groups (40‐W group: 72/86 84.7% vs. AI‐50 group: 51/62 82.2%, p = 0.81). The total RF application showed no difference (40‐W group: 12 9.5–15 vs. AI‐50 group: 12 9.7–16, p = 0.50); however, significant differences were observed in the total RF duration (40‐W group: 274 211–372 s vs. AI‐50 group: 180 138–249 s, p < 0.001), the RF duration for initial block (40‐W group: 225 163–323 s vs. AI‐50 group: 149 109–221 s, p < 0.001), and CTI procedural time (40‐W group: 9.2 6.0–14.6 min vs. AI‐50 group: 6.3 4.5–9.7 min, p = 0.007). No significant differences were observed in the mean CF, average temperature, and CTI length between the two groups. No major complications were observed in either of the groups. Conclusion AI‐guided CTI ablation protocol is efficient in shortening RF duration for acute bidirectional CTI block and CTI procedure time compared to the conventional 40 W ablation protocol.
Sudo et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation (n=148). AI-guided protocol vs. Conventional protocol (40 W for 20 s) was evaluated on First-line success rate (p=0.81). AI-guided CTI ablation significantly reduced total RF duration (180 vs 274 s, p<0.001) and procedural time compared to conventional 40 W ablation, with similar first-line success rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: