Abstract 16741: A Comparison of High versus Conventional Power Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the procedural safety and outcomes of high power (HP) versus conventional power (CP) radiofrequency (RF) ablation during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods: A systematic search was used via MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases between 01/1998 and 05/2020 for studies comparing the safety and efficacy between HP and CP during RF ablation for PVI using contact-force catheters (ThermocoolSmartTouch or TactiCath). The search terms used were “AF” AND “catheter ablation” OR “radiofrequency ablation”. Results: From eight comparative observational studies, we developed a cohort of 992 patients (478 in the HP and 514 in the CP group). The median maximum energy output used in the HP group was 50W vs 35W in the CP group. There was a statistically significant difference noted in acute pulmonary vein reconnection (APVR) in the HP group compared to the CP groups at16% vs 32.6%, respectively (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33 - 0.86, P = 0.01). Freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months follow-up was also significant and found to be 87.8% of cases in the HP group versus75.2% of cases in the CP group (RR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.32 - 0.65, P <0.01). The mean RF ablation time was 20.1 minutes in the HP group vs 39.6 minutes in the CP group (P <0.01). The mean total procedural time was 103.5 minutes in the HP group compared to 135 minutes in the CP group (P <0.01). Two patients in the CP group experienced severe adverse events (1 cardiac tamponade and 1 myocardial infarction). No serious AEs were found in the HP group. Non-serious AEs (groin complications, pericardial effusion, and phrenic nerve injury) were reported in 0.35% and 0.51% of cases in the HP and CP group, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that HP PVI ablation can be associated with better ablation outcomes by reducing the rate of acute and late PV reconnection and atrial arrhythmia recurrence, with similar safety profiles, and shorter procedural times. These findings merit evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.