Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Jul 2;84(1):61-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.05.001. Epub 2024 May 18.
The ADVENT randomized trial revealed no significant difference in 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) between thermal (radiofrequency/cryoballoon) and pulsed field ablation (PFA). However, recent studies indicate that the postablation AA burden is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the dichotomous endpoint of 30-second AA recurrence.
The goal of this study was to determine: 1) the impact of postablation AA burden on outcomes; and 2) the effect of ablation modality on AA burden.
In ADVENT, symptomatic drug-refractory patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation underwent PFA or thermal ablation. Postablation transtelephonic electrocardiogram monitor recordings were collected weekly or for symptoms, and 72-hour Holters were at 6 and 12 months. AA burden was calculated from percentage AA on Holters and transtelephonic electrocardiogram monitors. Quality-of-life assessments were at baseline and 12 months.
From 593 randomized patients (299 PFA, 294 thermal), using aggregate PFA/thermal data, an AA burden exceeding 0.1% was associated with a significantly reduced quality of life and an increase in clinical interventions: redo ablation, cardioversion, and hospitalization. There were more patients with residual AA burden <0.1% with PFA than thermal ablation (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0-2.3; P = 0.04). Evaluation of outcomes by baseline demographics revealed that patients with prior failed class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs had less residual AA burden after PFA compared to thermal ablation (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.4-4.3; P = 0.002); patients receiving only class II/IV antiarrhythmic drugs pre-ablation had no difference in AA burden between ablation groups.
Compared with thermal ablation, PFA more often resulted in an AA burden less than the clinically significant threshold of 0.1% burden. (The FARAPULSE ADVENT PIVOTAL Trial PFA System vs SOC Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation [ADVENT]; NCT04612244).
ADVENT 随机试验显示,在 1 年内,热(射频/冷冻球囊)消融与脉冲场消融(PFA)在避免房性心律失常(AA)复发方面无显著差异。然而,最近的研究表明,消融后 AA 负荷是预测临床结局的更好指标,优于 30 秒 AA 复发的二分法终点。
本研究旨在确定:1)消融后 AA 负荷对结局的影响;2)消融方式对 AA 负荷的影响。
在 ADVENT 中,患有阵发性房颤且药物难治性的有症状患者接受了 PFA 或热消融。消融后每周或根据症状进行远程心电图监测记录,6 个月和 12 个月时进行 72 小时动态心电图监测。AA 负荷通过动态心电图监测和远程心电图监测记录的 AA 百分比计算。在基线和 12 个月时进行生活质量评估。
在 593 例随机患者(PFA 组 299 例,热消融组 294 例)中,使用 PFA/热消融的汇总数据,AA 负荷超过 0.1%与生活质量显著降低和临床干预增加相关:再次消融、电复律和住院。与热消融相比,PFA 组的 AA 负荷<0.1%的患者更多(OR:1.5;95%CI:1.0-2.3;P=0.04)。根据基线人口统计学特征评估结局显示,与热消融相比,既往接受 I 类/III 类抗心律失常药物治疗失败的患者在接受 PFA 后 AA 负荷更低(OR:2.5;95%CI:1.4-4.3;P=0.002);消融前仅接受 II 类/IV 类抗心律失常药物治疗的患者,两组之间 AA 负荷无差异。
与热消融相比,PFA 更常导致 AA 负荷低于临床显著阈值 0.1%。(FARAPULSE ADVENT 关键性试验:PFA 系统与 SOC 消融治疗阵发性房颤 [ADVENT];NCT04612244)。