Ablation using the PVAC resulted in a significantly higher incidence of new subclinical intracranial embolic lesions (37.5%) compared to irrigated RF (7.4%) and cryoballoon (4.3%) (p=0.003).
Observational (n=74)
Yes
Does the type of ablation catheter (PVAC, cryoballoon, or irrigated RF) affect the incidence of subclinical intracranial embolic events in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for symptomatic atrial fibrillation?
74 patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation referred for pulmonary vein isolation.
Pulmonary vein isolation using multielectrode phased radiofrequency pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) (n=24) or cryoballoon (n=23), with strict periprocedural anticoagulation (intravenous heparin to achieve activated clotting time >300 s).
Conventional irrigated radiofrequency (RF) ablation (n=27), with strict periprocedural anticoagulation (intravenous heparin to achieve activated clotting time >300 s).
Subclinical intracranial embolic events detected by cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed before and after ablation.safety
The use of a multielectrode phased RF pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) is associated with a significantly higher risk of asymptomatic intracranial embolic events compared to conventional irrigated RF or cryoballoon ablation.
Absolute Event Rate: 37.5% vs 7.4%
p-value: p=0.003
OBJECTIVES: We compared the safety of different devices by screening for subclinical intracranial embolic events after pulmonary vein isolation with either conventional irrigated radiofrequency (RF) or cryoballoon or multielectrode phased RF pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC). BACKGROUND: New devices specifically designed to facilitate pulmonary vein isolation procedures have recently been introduced. METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation referred for pulmonary vein isolation. Ablation was performed using 1 of the 3 catheters. Strict periprocedural anticoagulation, with intravenous heparin during ablation to achieve an activated clotting time >300 s, was ensured in all patients. Cerebral magnetic resonance imaging was performed before and after ablation. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included in the study: 27 in the irrigated RF group, 23 in the cryoballoon group, and 24 in the PVAC group. Total procedure times were 198 ± 50 min, 174 ± 35 min, and 124 ± 32 min, respectively (p < 0.001 for PVAC vs. irrigated RF and cryoballoon). Findings on neurological examination were normal in all patients before and after ablation. Post-procedure magnetic resonance imaging detected a single new embolic lesion in 2 of 27 patients in the irrigated RF group (7.4%) and in 1 of 23 in the cryoballoon group (4.3%). However, in the PVAC group 9 of 24 patients (37.5%) demonstrated 2.7 ± 1.3 new lesions each (p = 0.003 for the presence of new embolic events among the 3 groups). CONCLUSIONS: The PVAC is associated with a significantly higher incidence of subclinical intracranial embolic events. Further study of the causes and significance of these emboli is required to determine the safety of the PVAC.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Claudia Herrera‐Siklody
Electrophysiology
Thomas Deneke
Electrophysiology
Mélèze Hocini
Electrophysiology
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque
Universitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad Krozingen
Krankenhaus Porz am Rhein
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Herrera‐Siklody et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (n=74). multielectrode phased RF pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) vs. conventional irrigated radiofrequency (RF) or cryoballoon was evaluated on new embolic lesions on post-procedure magnetic resonance imaging (p=0.003). Ablation using the PVAC resulted in a significantly higher incidence of new subclinical intracranial embolic lesions (37.5%) compared to irrigated RF (7.4%) and cryoballoon (4.3%) (p=0.003).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a195a069fea6d859c3655b5 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.04.010