Abstract
BackgroundHigh-frequency, low-tidal volume (HFLTV) ventilation increases the efficacy and efficiency of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Whether those benefits can be extrapolated to RFCA of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) is undetermined. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether using HFLTV ventilation during RFCA in patients with PeAF is associated with improved procedural and long-term clinical outcomes compared to standard ventilation (SV). MethodsIn this prospective multicenter registry (REAL-AF), patients who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + posterior wall isolation (PWI) for PeAF using either HFLTV ventilation or SV were included. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included procedural and long-term clinical outcomes and complications. ResultsA total of 210 patients were included (HFLTV=95 vs. SV=115) in the analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Procedural time (80 [66–103.5] minutes vs 110 [85–141] minutes; P <.001), total radiofrequency (RF) time (18.73 [13.93–26.53] minutes vs 26.15 [20.30–35.25] minutes; P <.001), and pulmonary vein RF time (11.35 [8.78–16.69] minutes vs 18 [13.74–24.14] minutes; P <.001) were significantly shorter using HFLTV ventilation compared with SV. Freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher with HFLTV ventilation compared with SV (82.1% vs 68.7%; hazard ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval [0.21–0.82]; P = .012), indicating a 43% relative risk reduction and a 13.4% absolute risk reduction in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence. There was no difference in long-term procedure-related complications between the groups (HFLTV 1.1% vs SV 0%, P = .270). ConclusionIn patients undergoing RFCA with PVI + PWI for PeAF, the use of HFLTV ventilation was associated with higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up, with significantly shorter procedural and RF times compared to SV, while reporting a similar safety profile.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.