Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies In Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies In Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Specific Aim: This prospective randomized study aims to compare the impact of three different catheter ablation approaches on long-term procedure outcome in terms of arrhythmia recurrence in persistent (PeAF) and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) patients. The three strategies to be evaluated are 1) ablation at sources guided by FIRMap (using RhythmView™ Workstation from TOPERA), 2) ablation at sources guided by FIRMap + conventional pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) and 3) Extended PVAI plus ablation of non-PV triggers and complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE).
Specific Aim: This prospective randomized study aims to compare the impact of three different catheter ablation approaches on long-term procedure outcome in terms of arrhythmia recurrence in persistent (PeAF) and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) patients. The three strategies to be evaluated are 1) ablation at sources guided by FIRMap (using RhythmView™ Workstation from TOPERA), 2) ablation at sources guided by FIRMap + conventional pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) and 3) Extended PVAI plus ablation of non-PV triggers and complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE).
Hypothesis: Extended PVAI plus ablation of non-PV triggers and CFAE results in better long-term procedure outcome in PeAF and LSPAF patients.
Background: The limited success rate of conventional ablation approaches in LSPAF has led to the search for the ideal ablation strategy (1). The main problem in the settings of PeAF and LSPAF is the lack of information on the best targets to ablate to achieve freedom from arrhythmia (2). Some strategies aim at elimination of AF triggers; some solely target CFAE for atrial substrate modification whereas others elect for isolation of PVs plus posterior wall along with ablation of non-PV triggers demonstrated by high-dose isoproterenol challenge with or without CFAEs. (2). The last option has been shown to be the best option so far in improving the freedom from AF at long-term follow-up (2, 3).
Recently Narayan et al, by using a computational mapping system that identifies 'rotors' (organized reentrant circuits or focal impulses), were able to achieve a success rate of 82.4% following ablation of rotors plus PVAI, at a median follow-up of 273 days, in a primarily paroxysmal AF population (4). The results of this study are promising and need to be tested in patients with PeAF and LSPAF.
Objective: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of different ablation approaches in PeAF and LSPAF patients.
Study Design: This prospective study will enroll 120 consecutive PeAF/LSPAF patients and consenting patients will be randomized to any of the 3 groups (40 per group); Group 1: ablation at sources guided by FIRMap (using RhythmView™ Workstation from TOPERA) Group 2: ablation at sources guided by FIRMap + conventional pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) Group 3: Extended PVAI plus ablation of non-PV triggers and complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) Patients will be randomized to different treatment groups after the risks and benefits of each one are discussed in detail with them.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: