High-density versus low-density mapping in ablation of atypical atrial flutter.

PURPOSE

Ablation of atypical atrial flutter (AAFL) can be challenging. High-density (HD) mapping of ablation targets may potentially increase procedural success and freedom from recurrent AAFL. The objective of the present study was to explore whether employing HD mapping leads to a more favorable outcome in ablation of AAFL.

METHODS

We compared baseline and procedural characteristics, procedural success, safety and outcome of mapping and ablation of atypical flutter in three groups. (1) HD Grid catheter + the high-density electroanatomical mapping (EAM) system EnSite Precision; (2) standard 10-pole circular mapping catheter (CMC) + EnSite Precision; (3) CMC + the low-density EnSite Velocity EAM. Voltage and propagation maps were constructed.

RESULTS

Mapping of 142 AAFL in 82 patients was performed. Acute ablation success was 78%, 68%, and 51% in groups 1, 2, and 3 (p = 0.037 between group 1 and 3, non-significant between groups otherwise). Moreover, 8%, 27%, and 36% of flutters were unmappable in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.05 between group 1 and both groups 2 and 3). AAFL recurrence at 1-year FU was 26%, 36%, and 62% in groups 1, 2, and 3 (p = 0.007 between groups 1 and 3, p = 0.05 between groups 2 and 3). AAFL-free survival was significantly higher in patients mapped with Precision than with Velocity (p = 0.011). No strokes or mortality occurred within 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute procedural success of ablation of atypical atrial flutter is higher and the number of unmappable flutters is lower using the HD Grid mapping catheter in combination with the high-density EnSite Precision system, as compared to a decapolar circular mapping catheter and the low-density EnSite Velocity EAM system. This may lead to increased freedom from recurrent AAFL at 1 year. HD mapping is safe.