Marai Ibrahim, Elias Adi, Rozen Guy, Beinart Roy, Nof Eyal, Michowitz Yoav, Glikson Michael, Konstantino Yuval, Haim Moti, Luria David, Omelchenko Alexander, Laish-Farkash Avishag, Suleiman Mahmoud
Lea and Benjamin Davidai Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Cardiovascular Department, The Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, The Lydia and Carol KittnerTzafon Medical Center, PoriyaBar Ilan University, Zefat, Israel.
Rambam Health Care Campus and the B. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Eyal Ofer Heart Hospital, Cardiac Electrophysiology and Pacing, Haifa, Israel.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2025 Jan;68(1):73-81. doi: 10.1007/s10840-024-01887-8. Epub 2024 Aug 3.
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the most effective therapy to achieve rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF). Peri-procedural imaging is used in many but not all centers. However, the impact of imaging on safety and efficacy of PVI is not clear. The Israeli Catheter Ablation Registry (ICAR) is a great opportunity to explore this issue in real-world practice.
To describe the real-world utilization of peri-procedural imaging technologies in a large cohort of patients undergoing ablation for AF.
A prospective-multicenter cohort of AF patients who underwent PVI during the years 2019-2021. Peri-procedural imaging (CT, ICE, TEE) was utilized based on the center and operator discretion. The study endpoints were peri-procedural complications and AF recurrence at 12 months follow-up among patients with and without peri-procedural imaging.
Between January 2019 and December 2021, a total of 921 patients underwent PVI. Peri-procedural imaging (at least 1 modality of CT, TEE, and or ICE) was utilized in 753 (81.8%) and no imaging among 168 (18.2%) patients. Cryoablation was the dominant energy used for PVI in both groups (92.3% of the non-imaging group, and 95.3% among imaging group), while RF was used in the rest of the patients. Fluoroscopy time was not different between the 2 groups; however, procedure duration was longer among the imaging group (90 min) compared to the non-imaging group (74.5 min, p = 0.006). By 12 months, the incidence of AF recurrence and repeated ablation were not different between the groups. Complications and re-hospitalization for cardiocerebrovascular reasons were not different among the 2 groups. Cox regression model demonstrated no association between preprocedural imaging and the risk of AF recurrence after ablation.
This real-world multicenter prospective registry study demonstrated that the rate of complications and the rate of recurrence of AF during 1 year follow-up were not different among patients who had PVI either with or without peri-procedural imaging.
肺静脉隔离(PVI)是实现心房颤动(AF)节律控制的最有效疗法。许多但并非所有中心都在围手术期使用影像学检查。然而,影像学检查对PVI安全性和有效性的影响尚不清楚。以色列导管消融注册研究(ICAR)为在实际临床实践中探索这一问题提供了绝佳机会。
描述在一大群接受AF消融治疗的患者中围手术期成像技术的实际应用情况。
对2019年至2021年期间接受PVI的AF患者进行一项前瞻性多中心队列研究。围手术期成像(CT、心腔内超声[ICE]、经食管超声心动图[TEE])的使用取决于中心和术者的判断。研究终点为有或没有围手术期成像的患者在12个月随访时的围手术期并发症和AF复发情况。
2019年1月至2021年12月期间,共有921例患者接受了PVI。753例(81.8%)患者使用了围手术期成像(CT、TEE和/或ICE的至少一种模式),168例(18.2%)患者未使用成像。两组中冷冻消融都是用于PVI的主要能量(非成像组的92.3%,成像组的95.3%),其余患者使用射频消融。两组间透视时间无差异;然而,成像组的手术持续时间(90分钟)比非成像组(74.5分钟)更长(p = 0.006)。到12个月时,两组间AF复发率和再次消融率无差异。两组间因心脑血管原因导致的并发症和再次住院情况无差异。Cox回归模型显示术前成像与消融后AF复发风险之间无关联。
这项实际临床中的多中心前瞻性注册研究表明,在1年随访期间,接受PVI且有或没有围手术期成像的患者之间,并发症发生率和AF复发率无差异。