Key result
Straight cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy (depth < 4.1 mm) was associated with a significantly higher first-pass ablation success rate compared to concave anatomy (88% vs 50%, p<0.01) when using optimal ablation index cut-offs.
Why the study?
To investigate the relationship between cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy and ablation parameters, and to assess the influence of ablation index on the procedural results of typical atrial flutter ablation.
Does cavotricuspid isthmus depth affect the first-pass success rate of ablation index-guided linear ablation in patients with typical atrial flutter?
Cohort (n=107)
No
Does cavotricuspid isthmus depth affect the first-pass success rate of ablation index-guided linear ablation in patients with typical atrial flutter?
Absolute Event Rate: 88% vs 50%
p-value: p=<0.01
Concave cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy (depth ≥4.1 mm) is associated with a significantly lower first-pass success rate during AI-guided ablation for typical atrial flutter, suggesting a need for modified procedural strategies in these patients.
AI-guided CTI ablation in flutter merits prospective trials; leaves open optimal parameters and durability.
Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) linear ablation has been established as the treatment for typical atrial flutter. Recently, ablation index (AI) has emerged as a novel marker for estimating ablation lesions. We investigated the relationship between CTI anatomy and ablation parameters. In addition, we focused on the influence of AI on the procedural results of typical atrial flutter ablation. A total of 107 patients who underwent CTI ablation were retrospectively enrolled in this study. All patients underwent computed tomography before catheter ablation. From the receiver-operating curve, the best cut-off value of CTI depth was < 4.1 mm to predict first-pass success. The patients were divided into two groups according to the CTI depth: the concave group (CG) and straight group (SG). Although the average AI was not different between both groups, the CG required a longer ablation time and showed a lower first-pass success rate (p < 0.01). In addition, the catheter inversion technique was more frequently required in the CG (p < 0.01). The best cut-off values of the weakest AIs at the anterior and posterior lesions for predicting first-pass success were >420 and >386, respectively. Among patients with these cut-off values, the first-pass success rate was 88% in the SG and 50% in the CG (p < 0.01). Although ablation parameters were not significantly different, the first-pass success rate was lower in the CG than in the SG. AI-guided CTI may be useful in straight CTIs, but a modified approach might be required for concave CTIs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kashiwagi et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Typical atrial flutter (n=107). Straight cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy (depth < 4.1 mm) vs. Concave cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy (depth ≥ 4.1 mm) was evaluated on First-pass success of CTI linear ablation (among patients meeting optimal ablation index cut-offs) (p=<0.01). Straight cavotricuspid isthmus anatomy (depth < 4.1 mm) was associated with a significantly higher first-pass ablation success rate compared to concave anatomy (88% vs 50%, p<0.01) when using optimal ablation index cut-offs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: