Key result
High power-ablation index-guided ablation significantly reduced atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to low power ablation (HR 0.285) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
The safety and efficacy of high-power ablation index (HP-AI)-guided ablation compared with low-power AI-guided ablation in a milder AI-targeting setting were unknown.
Does high power-ablation index-guided ablation improve atrial arrhythmia-free survival compared to low power ablation in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=134)
Open-label
Alternating assignment
No
Does high power-ablation index-guided ablation improve atrial arrhythmia-free survival compared to low power ablation in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.285 (95% CI 0.103–0.784)
Absolute Event Rate: 93.2% vs 71.7%
p-value: p=0.015
In a milder ablation index setting, high power-ablation index-guided ablation significantly improves arrhythmia-free survival compared to low power ablation, with a similar safety profile.
HP-AI may improve arrhythmia-free survival versus low-power AI with similar safety in milder targets; extends high-power evidence to Asian settings.
Background High power-ablation index (HP-AI)-guided ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) targeting high AIs has been implemented in European countries. However, milder AI targets are widely used in Asia. The safety and efficacy of HP-AI-guided ablation compared with those of low-power AI-guided ablation in a milder AI-targeting setting are unknown. The goal of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of HP-AI-guided ablation in a milder AI-targeting setting. Methods Patients who underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for AI-guided atrial fibrillation ablation in our center were enrolled and divided into 2 groups according to the ablation power used. In the HP-AI group, the ablation power was over 45 W, while the low power-AI group was ablated with <35 W power. The targeted AIs were 450–500 in the anterior wall and 350–400 in the posterior wall. The efficacy outcome was expressed as the single-procedure atrial arrhythmia-free survival between 91 days and 1 year. Safety outcomes included severe adverse events (SAEs), including symptomatic pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis, atrioesophagal fistula, cardiac tamponade, stroke, thromboembolism events, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding. Results A total of 134 patients were enrolled, of whom 74 underwent PVI using HP-AI, while 60 received low power-AI ablation. After a mean follow-up time of 7.4 months, 22 (16.4%) patients showed arrhythmia recurrence: 5 (6.8%) patients in the HP-AI group and 17 (28.3%) patients in the low power-AI group. The HP-AI group showed a significantly higher arrhythmia-free survival than the low power-AI group ( p = 0.011). Two patients in the low power-AI group and 1 patient in the HP-AI group developed an SAE ( p = NS). Compared with the low power-AI group, the HP-AI group demonstrated a higher PV first-pass isolation rate, shorter ablation time, and fewer patients with anatomical leakages and sites of unreached AI. Conclusion In a milder AI setting, HP-AI ablation might result in significantly higher arrhythmia-free survival than low power-AI ablation and a similar safety profile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=134). High power-ablation index (HP-AI) guided ablation vs. Low power-AI guided ablation (≤35 W) was evaluated on Single-procedure atrial arrhythmia-free survival between 91 days and 1 year (HR 0.285, 95% CI 0.103-0.784, p=0.015). High power-ablation index-guided ablation significantly reduced atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to low power ablation (HR 0.285) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: