Key result
An ablation protocol targeting an interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm was superior to 5.0-6.0 mm for achieving first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (90.9% vs 35.0%, P<0.0001).
Why the study?
While the CLOSE protocol proposes a maximally tolerable interlesion distance of 6 mm for ablation index-guided AF ablation, a target interlesion distance had never been defined.
Does an ablation protocol with a target interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm improve first-pass pulmonary vein isolation compared to 5.0-6.0 mm in patients undergoing first-time ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation?
RCT (n=42)
randomly assigned
Does an ablation protocol with a target interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm improve first-pass pulmonary vein isolation compared to 5.0-6.0 mm in patients undergoing first-time ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.9% vs 35%
p-value: p=< 0.0001
Targeting a shorter interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm significantly improves first-pass pulmonary vein isolation rates and reduces procedure time compared to a 5.0-6.0 mm target in ablation index-guided AF ablation.
Shorter 3-4 mm interlesion targets improve first-pass PVI in AI-guided AF ablation; extends evidence on optimal lesion contiguity for durable isolation.
AIMS: While the CLOSE protocol proposes a maximally tolerable interlesion distance (ILD) of 6 mm for ablation index ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, a target ILD has never been defined. This randomized study sought to establish a target ILD for ablation index-guided AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients scheduled for first-time pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) were randomly assigned to ablation protocols with a target ILD of 5.0-6.0 mm or 3.0-4.0 mm, with the primary endpoint of first-pass PVI. In compliance with the CLOSE protocol, the maximum tolerated ILD was 6.0 mm in both study protocols. A target ablation index of ≥550 (anterior) or ≥400 (posterior) was defined for the '5-6 mm' protocol and ≥500 (anterior) or ≥350 (posterior) for the '3-4 mm' protocol. The study was terminated early for superiority of the '3-4 mm' protocol. Forty-two consecutive patients were randomized and 84 ipsilateral PV pairs encircled according to the study protocol. First-pass PVI was accomplished in 35.0% of the '5-6 mm' group and 90.9% of the '3-4 mm' group (P < 0.0001). Median ILD was 5.2 mm in the '5-6 mm' group and 3.6 mm in the '3-4 mm' group (P < 0.0001). In line with the distinct ablation index targets, median ablation index was lower in the '3-4 mm' group (416 vs. 452, P < 0.0001). While mean procedure time was shorter in the '3-4 mm' group (149 ± 27 vs. 167 ± 33min, P = 0.004), fluoroscopy times did not differ significantly (4.7 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.8 min, P = 0.565). CONCLUSION: In ablation index-guided AF ablation, an ILD of 3.0-4.0 mm should be targeted rather than 5.0-6.0 mm. Moreover, the lower target ILD may allow for less extensive ablation at each given point.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoffmann et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in atrial fibrillation (n=42). Ablation protocol with target interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm vs. Ablation protocol with target interlesion distance of 5.0-6.0 mm was evaluated on first-pass PVI (p=< 0.0001). An ablation protocol targeting an interlesion distance of 3.0-4.0 mm was superior to 5.0-6.0 mm for achieving first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (90.9% vs 35.0%, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: