Key result
Grid annotation-guided dragging ablation resulted in a similar procedure duration compared to Ablation Index-guided point-by-point ablation (71 vs. 72 minutes, p=0.765) for pulmonary vein isolation.
Why the study?
Radiofrequency AF ablation using a catheter dragging technique may shorten procedure duration and improve PVI durability by creating uninterrupted linear lesions, but comparison with standard point-by-point ablation was needed.
Does a Grid annotation-guided dragging approach reduce procedure duration compared to Ablation Index-guided point-by-point ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=88)
Single-blind
1:1
No
Does a Grid annotation-guided dragging approach reduce procedure duration compared to Ablation Index-guided point-by-point ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Grid annotation does not shorten PVI procedure time versus AI guidance; confirms comparable efficiency of both approaches in AF ablation.
INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency (RF) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using a catheter dragging technique may shorten procedural duration and improve durability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by creating uninterrupted linear ablation lesions. We compared a novel AF ablation approach guided by Grid annotation allowing for "drag lesions" with a standard point-by-point ablation approach in a single-center randomized study. METHODS: Eighty-eight paroxysmal or persistent AF patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo RF-PVI with either a catheter dragging ablation technique guided by Grid annotation or point-by-point ablation guided by Ablation Index (AI) annotation. In the Grid annotation arm, ablation was visualized using 1 mm³ grid points coloring red after meeting predefined stability and contact force criteria. In the AI annotation arm, ablation lesions were created in a point-by-point fashion with AI target values set at 380 and 500 for posterior/inferior and anterior/roof segments, respectively. Patients were followed up for 12 months after PVI using ECGs, 24-h Holter monitoring and a mobile-based one-lead ECG device. RESULTS: Procedure time was not different between the two randomization arms (Grid annotation 71 ± 19 min, AI annotation 72 ± 26 min, p = .765). RF time was significantly longer in the Grid annotation arm compared with the AI annotation arm (49 ± 8 min vs. 37 ± 8 min, respectively, p < .001). Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence was documented in 10 patients (23%) in the Grid annotation arm compared with 19 patients (42%) in the AI annotation arm with time to recurrence not reaching statistical significance (p = .074). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a Grid annotation-guided dragging approach provides an alternative to point-by-point RF-PVI using AI annotation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mulder et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (n=88). Grid annotation-guided dragging ablation vs. Ablation Index (AI) annotation-guided point-by-point ablation was evaluated on Procedure duration (time from first RF lesion to end of final left atrial RF lesion) (p=0.765). Grid annotation-guided dragging ablation resulted in a similar procedure duration compared to Ablation Index-guided point-by-point ablation (71 vs. 72 minutes, p=0.765) for pulmonary vein isolation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: