Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Cardiology Department, Na Homolce Hospital, Homolka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2024 May;10(5):900-912. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.01.017. Epub 2024 Jan 31.
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is insufficient to treat many patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). Adjunctive left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) ablation with thermal technologies has revealed lack of efficacy, perhaps limited by the difficulty in achieving lesion durability amid concerns of esophageal injury.
This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI + LAPW ablation vs PVI in patients with PersAF using pulsed-field ablation (PFA).
In a retrospective analysis of the MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) registry, we studied consecutive PersAF patients undergoing post-approval treatment with a pentaspline PFA catheter. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from any atrial arrhythmia of ≥30 seconds. Safety outcomes included the composite of acute and chronic major adverse events.
Of the 547 patients with PersAF who underwent PFA, 131 (24%) received adjunctive LAPW ablation. Compared to PVI-alone, patients receiving adjunctive LAPW ablation were younger (65 vs 67 years of age, P = 0.08), had a lower CHADS-VASc score (2.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.6 ± 1.6, P = 0.08), and were more likely to receive electroanatomical mapping (48.1% vs 39.0%, P = 0.07) and intracardiac echocardiography imaging (46.1% vs 17.1%, P < 0.001). The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmias was not statistically different between groups in the full (PVI + LAPW: 66.4%; 95% CI: 57.6%-74.4% vs PVI: 73.1%; 95% CI: 68.5%-77.2%; P = 0.68) and propensity-matched cohorts (PVI + LAPW: 71.7% vs PVI: 68.5%; P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in major adverse events between the groups (2.2% vs 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.51).
In patients with PersAF undergoing PFA, as compared to PVI-alone, adjunctive LAPW ablation did not improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months.
肺静脉隔离(PVI)单独治疗持续性心房颤动(PersAF)效果不佳。采用热消融技术的左心房后壁(LAPW)辅助消融显示出疗效不足,这可能是由于担心食管损伤而导致的难以实现持久的消融效果。
本研究旨在比较使用脉冲场消融(PFA)进行 PVI+LAPW 消融与 PVI 治疗 PersAF 患者的安全性和有效性。
在多国家脉冲场消融术后批准临床应用方法、疗效和安全性的 MANIFEST-PF(Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation)注册研究的回顾性分析中,我们研究了使用五边形 PFA 导管进行了术后批准治疗的连续 PersAF 患者。主要有效性结局是无任何持续≥30 秒的心房心律失常。安全性结局包括急性和慢性重大不良事件的综合。
在 547 例接受 PFA 的 PersAF 患者中,有 131 例(24%)接受了 LAPW 辅助消融。与单纯 PVI 相比,接受辅助 LAPW 消融的患者年龄更小(65 岁 vs. 67 岁,P=0.08),CHA2DS2-VASc 评分更低(2.3±1.6 分 vs. 2.6±1.6 分,P=0.08),更有可能接受电解剖标测(48.1% vs. 39.0%,P=0.07)和心内超声成像(46.1% vs. 17.1%,P<0.001)。在全组(PVI+LAPW:66.4%;95%CI:57.6%-74.4% vs. PVI:73.1%;95%CI:68.5%-77.2%;P=0.68)和倾向匹配队列(PVI+LAPW:71.7% vs. PVI:68.5%;P=0.34)中,两组的 1 年 Kaplan-Meier 无房性心律失常估计值均无统计学差异。两组之间的重大不良事件发生率也没有显著差异(分别为 2.2%和 1.4%,P=0.51)。
在接受 PFA 治疗的 PersAF 患者中,与单纯 PVI 相比,辅助 LAPW 消融并不能在 12 个月时改善房性心律失常的无复发率。