The Feasibility, Safety and Outcome of Very High-Power Short Duration Radiofrequency Ablation in Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Real-World Observation Study.

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) ablation is the established gold standard therapy for patients with symptomatic drug refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Advancements in radiofrequency (RF) ablation, have led to the development of the novel contact force-sensing temperature-controlled very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) RF ablation. This setting delivers 90 W for up to 4 seconds with a constant irrigation flow rate of 8 mL/min. The aim of this study was to compare procedural outcomes and safety with conventional radiofrequency ablation.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with patients who underwent first time PVI ablation between August 2020 and January 2022. The cohort was divided into: (1) vHPSD ablation; (2) High-power short duration (HPSD) ablation; (3) THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF). The vHPSD ablation group was prospectively recruited while the HPSD and STSF group were retrospectively collected. Primary outcomes were procedural success, PVI duration, ablation duration and incidence of perioperative adverse events. Secondary outcomes were intraprocedural morphine and midazolam requirement.

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients were included in the study with 100, 30 and 45 patients in the vHPSD, HPSD and STSF group, respectively. PVI was successfully attained in all vHPSD patients. vHPSD demonstrated significantly reduced time required for PVI and total energy application in comparison to the HPSD and STSF groups (67.7 29.7 vs. 92.9 25.7 vs. 93.6 29.1 min, 0.0001; 9.87 4.16 vs. 33.9 7.49 vs. 36.0 10.5 min, 0.0001, respectively). Intravenous morphine and midazolam requirement was lower in the vHPSD group compared to the HPSD and STSF groups (10.2 3.43 vs. 16.1 4.58 vs. 15.3 3.94 mg, 0.0001; 4.04 3.24 vs. 8.63 5.22 vs. 8.58 4.72 mg, 0.0001). One cardiac tamponade was observed in both the vHPSD and HPSD groups while the STSF group exhibited an embolic stoke and two pericardial effusions that did not require drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, vHPSD demonstrated a comparable safety profile to the other treatment arms. Procedural duration and energy application time was substantially reduced along with sedation requirement notwithstanding the limitations of observational study design, these preliminary findings are promising with respect to periprocedural outcomes and safety of vHPSD however longitudinal outcomes will be essential to assessing the overall efficacy of this novel technology.