Modified phased radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation reduces the number of cerebral microembolic signals

Abstract

Phased radiofrequency (RF) ablation for atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased number of silent cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging and cerebral microembolic signals (MESs) on transcranial Doppler ultrasound imaging compared with irrigated RF. The increased rate of embolic events may be due to a specific electrical interference of ablation electrodes attributed to the catheter design. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the effect of deactivating the culprit electrodes on cerebral MESs. Twenty-nine consecutive patients (60 ± 11 years, 10 female) underwent their first pulmonary vein isolation using phased RF energy. Electrode pairs 1 or 5 were deactivated to avoid electrical interference between electrodes 1 and 10 ('modified'). Detection of MESs by transcranial Doppler ultrasound was performed throughout the procedure to assess cerebral microembolism. Results were compared with the numbers of MESs in 31 patients ablated using all available electrodes ('conventional') and to 30 patients undergoing irrigated RF ablation of a previous randomized study. Ablation with 'modified' phased RF was associated with a marked decrease in MESs when compared with 'conventional' phased RF (566 ± 332 vs. 1530 ± 980; P < 0.001). This difference was mainly triggered by the reduction of MES during delivery of phased RF energy, resulting in MES numbers comparable to irrigated RF ablation (646 ± 449; P = 0.7). Total procedure duration as well as time of RF delivery was comparable between phased RF groups. Both times, however, were significantly shorter compared with the irrigated RF group (123 ± 28 vs. 195 ± 38; 15 ± 4 vs. 30 ± 9; P < 0.001, respectively). Pulmonary vein isolation with 'modified' phased RF is associated with a decreased number of cerebral microembolism especially during the delivery of ablation impulses, supporting the significance of electrical interference between ablation electrodes 1 and 10. Deactivation of electrode pairs 1 or 5 might increase the safety of this approach without an increase in procedure duration or RF delivery time.