Key result
Ablation index-guided AF ablation yields similar rates of thermal esophageal lesions versus contact force-guided ablation.
Why the study?
Left atrial RF ablation is associated with endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions, but the occurrence of these lesions using conventional contact force guidance versus an ablation index-guided approach in voltage-guided ablation was not compared.
Does ablation index-guided radiofrequency ablation reduce endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions compared to contact force-guided ablation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Cohort (n=200)
Does ablation index-guided radiofrequency ablation reduce endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions compared to contact force-guided ablation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 5% vs 6%
p-value: p=0.86
Ablation index-guided and contact force-guided radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation have comparable rates of endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions, with AI > 520 identified as a predictor of injury.
Comparable lesion rates do not favor one technique; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm safety equivalence in AF ablation.
AIMS: Left atrial ablation using radiofrequency (RF) is associated with endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions (EDELs). The aim of this study was to compare EDEL occurrence after conventional contact force-guided (CFG) RF ablation vs. an ablation index-guided (AIG) approach in clinical routine of voltage-guided ablation (VGA). Predictors of EDEL were also assessed. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study compared CFG (n = 100) with AIG (n = 100) in consecutive atrial fibrillation ablation procedures, in which both pulmonary vein isolation and VGA were performed. In the AIG group, AI targets were ≥500 anteriorly and ≥350-400 posteriorly. Upper endoscopy was performed after ablation.The CFG and AIG groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The EDEL occurred in 6 and 5% (P = 0.86) in the CFG and AIG groups, respectively. Category 2 lesions occurred in 4 and 2% (P = 0.68), respectively. All EDEL healed under proton pump inhibitor therapy. The AI > 520 was the only predictor of EDEL [odds ratio (OR) 3.84; P = 0.039]. The more extensive Category 2 lesions were predicted by: AI max > 520 during posterior ablation (OR 7.05; P = 0.042), application of posterior or roof lines (OR 5.19; P = 0.039), existence of cardiomyopathy (OR 4.93; P = 0.047), and CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR 1.71; P = 0.044). The only Category 2 lesion with AI max < 520 (467) occurred in a patient with low body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods were comparable with respect to clinical complications and EDEL. In consideration of previous reconnection data and our study results regarding oesophageal safety, optimal AI target range might be between 400 and 450.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schade et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=200). Ablation index-guided (AIG) approach vs. Conventional contact force-guided (CFG) RF ablation was evaluated on Endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions (EDELs) (p=0.86). Ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation yielded a similar rate of endoscopically detected thermal oesophageal lesions compared to contact force-guided ablation (5% vs 6%; P=0.86).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: