TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of peri-procedural imaging on safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation
T2 - insights from the Israeli AF Catheter Ablation Registry (ICAR)
AU - on behalf of the Israeli Working Group on Pacing, Electrophysiology
AU - Marai, Ibrahim
AU - Elias, Adi
AU - Rozen, Guy
AU - Beinart, Roy
AU - Nof, Eyal
AU - Michowitz, Yoav
AU - Glikson, Michael
AU - Konstantino, Yuval
AU - Haim, Moti
AU - Luria, David
AU - Omelchenko, Alexander
AU - Laish-Farkash, Avishag
AU - Suleiman, Mahmoud
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: 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. Aim: To describe the real-world utilization of peri-procedural imaging technologies in a large cohort of patients undergoing ablation for AF. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
AB - Background: 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. Aim: To describe the real-world utilization of peri-procedural imaging technologies in a large cohort of patients undergoing ablation for AF. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
KW - Ablation
KW - Atrial fibrillation
KW - Imaging
KW - Pulmonary vein isolation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85200349889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10840-024-01887-8
DO - 10.1007/s10840-024-01887-8
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 39095673
AN - SCOPUS:85200349889
SN - 1383-875X
JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
ER -