Key result
Epicardial validation of bidirectional conduction block was 100% equal to endocardial validation for most lesions, but showed 85% similarity for the right superior pulmonary vein.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether epicardial and endocardial validation of bidirectional block after thoracoscopic surgical ablation for AF are comparable, as epicardial validation may produce false-positive results from tissue edema.
Does epicardial validation of conduction block correspond to endocardial validation in patients undergoing hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation?
Observational (n=25)
Does epicardial validation of conduction block correspond to endocardial validation in patients undergoing hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation?
Epicardial validation of bidirectional conduction block corresponds well with endocardial validation during hybrid AF ablation, whereas tissue conductance measurements alone are insufficient to confirm block.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support epicardial validation in hybrid AF ablation; leaves open prospective confirmation for right superior pulmonary vein and tissue conductance limits.
OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether epicardial and endocardial validation of bidirectional block after thoracoscopic surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation is comparable. Epicardial validation may lead to false-positive results due to epicardial tissue edema, and thus could leave gaps with subsequent arrhythmia recurrence. It is the aim of the present study to answer this question in patients who underwent hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation (combined thoracoscopic epicardial and endocardial catheter ablation). METHODS: After epicardial ablation of the pulmonary veins (PVs) and connecting inferior and roof lines (box lesion), exit and entrance block were epicardially and endocardially evaluated using an endocardial His Bundle catheter and electrophysiological workstation. If incomplete lesions were found, endocardial touch-up ablation was performed. Validation results were also compared to predictions about conduction block based on tissue conductance measurements of the epicardial ablation device. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included. Epicardial validation results were 100% equal to the endocardial results for the left superior, left inferior, and right inferior PVs and box lesion. For the right superior PV, 85% similarity was found. Based on tissue conductance measurements, 139 lesions were expected to be complete; however, in 5 (3.6%) a gap was present. CONCLUSIONS: Epicardial bidirectional conduction block in the PVs and the box lesion corresponded well with endocardial bidirectional conduction block. Conduction block predictions by changes in tissue conductance failed in few cases compared to block confirmation. This emphasizes that tissue conduction measurements can provide a rough indication of lesion effectiveness but needs endpoint confirmation by either epicardial or endocardial block testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vroomen et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=25). Epicardial validation of bidirectional block vs. Endocardial validation was evaluated on Concordance between epicardial and endocardial validation of bidirectional block. Epicardial validation of bidirectional conduction block was 100% equal to endocardial validation for most lesions, but showed 85% similarity for the right superior pulmonary vein.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: