High-power short-duration versus low-power long-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: A substudy of the AWARE randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Pulmonary vein isolations (PVI)are being performed using a high-power, short-duration (HPSD)strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of an HPSD versus low-power, long-duration (LPLD)approach to PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients were grouped according to a HPSD (≥40 W) or LPLD (≤35 W) strategy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting ≥30 s, detected using three 14-day ambulatory continuous ECG monitoring. Procedural and safety endpoints were also evaluated. The primary analysis were regression models incorporating propensity scores yielding adjusted relative risk (RRa ) and mean difference (MDa ) estimates. Of the 398 patients included in the AWARE Trial, 173 (43%) underwent HPSD and 225 (57%) LPLD ablation. The distribution of power was 50 W in 75%, 45 W in 20%, and 40 W in 5% in the HPSD group, and 35 W with 25 W on the posterior wall in the LPLD group. The primary outcome was not statistically significant at 30.1% versus 22.2% in HPSD and LPLD groups with RRa 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI])0.55-1.10; p = .165). The secondary outcome of repeat catheter ablation was not statistically significant at 6.9% and 9.8% (RRa 1.59 [95% CI 0.77-3.30]; p = .208) respectively, nor was the incidence of any ECG documented AF during the blanking period: 1.7% versus 8.0% (RRa 3.95 [95% CI 1.00-15.61; p = .049) in the HPSD versus LPLD group respectively. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in the HPSD group (MDa 97.5 min [95% CI 84.8-110.4)]; p < .0001) with no difference in adjudicated serious adverse events. An HPSD strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedural times with similar efficacy in terms of clinical arrhythmia recurrence. Importantly, there was no signal for increased harm with a HPSD strategy.