Impact of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Ablation During Pulsed-Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Mohit K. Turagam, Petr Neuzil, Boris Schmidt, Tobias Reichlin, Kars Neven, Andreas Metzner, Jim Hansen, Yuri Blaauw, Philippe Maury, Thomas Arentz, Philipp Sommer, Ante Anic, Frederic Anselme, Serge Boveda, Tom Deneke, Stephan Willems, Pepijn van der Voort, Roland Tilz, Moritoshi Funasako, Daniel ScherrReza Wakili, Daniel Steven, Josef Kautzner, Johan Vijgen, Pierre Jais, Jan Petru, Julian Chun, Laurent Roten, Anna Füting, Marc D. Lemoine, Martin Ruwald, Bart A. Mulder, Anne Rollin, Heiko Lehrmann, Thomas Fink, Zrinka Jurisic, Corentin Chaumont, Raquel Adelino, Karin Nentwich, Melanie Gunawardene, Alexandre Ouss, Christian Hendrik Heeger, Martin Manninger, Jan Eric Bohnen, Arian Sultan, Petr Peichl, Pieter Koopman, Nicolas Derval, Thomas Kueffer, Nico Reinsch, Vivek Y. Reddy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: 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. Objectives: This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI + LAPW ablation vs PVI in patients with PersAF using pulsed-field ablation (PFA). Methods: 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. Results: 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 CHA2DS2-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). Conclusions: In patients with PersAF undergoing PFA, as compared to PVI-alone, adjunctive LAPW ablation did not improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)900-912
Number of pages13
JournalJACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2024

Keywords

  • atrial fibrillation
  • posterior wall ablation
  • pulmonary vein isolation
  • pulsed field ablation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Ablation During Pulsed-Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this