Advertisement

Predictors of chronic pulmonary vein reconnections after contact force-guided ablation: importance of completing electrical isolation with circumferential lines and creating sufficient ablation lesion densities

  • Kohki Nakamura
  • Shigeto Naito
  • Takehito Sasaki
  • Kentaro Minami
  • Yutaka Take
  • Satoru Shimizu
  • Yoshiaki Yamaguchi
  • Toshiaki Yano
  • Michiharu Senga
  • Eiji Yamashita
  • Yoshinao Sugai
  • Koji Kumagai
  • Nobusada Funabashi
  • Shigeru Oshima
Article

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to identify the predictors of chronic pulmonary vein reconnections (CPVRs) after contact force (CF)-guided circumferential PV isolation (CPVI) of atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing second ablation procedures for recurrent AF after CF-guided ablation were retrospectively studied. The CPVI was performed by point-by-point ablation with a target CF of 15–20 g. The incidence of CPVRs was evaluated along the right- and left-sided anterior and posterior CPVI regions (Ant-RPVs, Post-RPVs, Ant-LPVs, and Post-LPVs).

Results

CPVRs were observed in 30.6, 22.4, 20.4, and 32.7 % of patients along the Ant-RPVs, Post-RPVs, Ant-LPVs, and Post-LPVs, respectively (P = 0.436). In the multivariate logistic analyses, completing a left atrium-PV conduction block with touch-up ablation inside the initially estimated CPVI lines (Ant-RPVs, Post-RPVs, Ant-LPVs, Post-LPVs; odds ratio [OR] 5.747, 15.000, 207.619, 7.940; P = 0.032, 0.004, 0.034, 0.021) and region length (Post-LPVs; OR 3.183, P = 0.027) were positive predictors of CPVRs, while the mean CF (Ant-RPVs; OR 0.861, P = 0.045) and number of radiofrequency applications per unit length (Ant-LPVs, Post-LPVs; OR 0.038, 0.122; P = 0.034, 0.029) were negative predictors. At optimal cutoffs of 5.8 cm for the region length, 14.2 g for the mean CF, and 1.97/cm (Ant-LPVs) and 2.01/cm (Post-LPVs) for the radiofrequency application density, the sensitivity and specificity were 93.8 and 63.6 %, 60.0 and 76.5 %, 90.0 and 64.1 %, and 75.0 and 63.6 %, respectively.

Conclusions

Completing PVI with circumferential lines without touch-up ablation and creating a sufficient density of radiofrequency ablation lesions on the lines with a sufficient CF may be necessary to prevent CPVRs after a CF-guided CPVI.

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation Contact force Pulmonary vein isolation Pulmonary vein reconnection Radiofrequency catheter ablation 

References

  1. 1.
    Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen SA, Davies W, Iesaka Y, Kalman J, et al. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3:32–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, Brugada J, Camm AJ, Chen SA, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design: a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Endorsed by the governing bodies of the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart Association, the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:632–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bunch TJ, Cutler MJ. Is pulmonary vein isolation still the cornerstone in atrial fibrillation ablation? J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:132–41.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhne M, Suter Y, Altmann D, Ammann P, Schaer B, Osswald S, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: biomarkers of myocardial injury, recurrence rates, and pulmonary vein reconnection patterns. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:1770–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajappan K, Kistler PM, Earley MJ, Thomas G, Izquierdo M, Sporton SC, et al. Acute and chronic pulmonary vein reconnection after atrial fibrillation ablation: a prospective characterization of anatomical sites. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31:1598–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ouyang F, Tilz R, Chun J, Schmidt B, Wissner E, Zerm T, et al. Long-term results of catheter ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: lessons from a 5-year follow-up. Circulation. 2010;122:2368–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Callans DJ, Gerstenfeld EP, Dixit S, Zado E, Vanderhoff M, Ren JF, et al. Efficacy of repeat pulmonary vein isolation procedures in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004;15:1050–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cappato R, Negroni S, Pecora D, Bentivegna S, Lupo PP, Carolei A, et al. Prospective assessment of late conduction recurrence across radiofrequency lesions producing electrical disconnection at the pulmonary vein ostium in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2003;108:1599–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerstenfeld EP, Callans DJ, Dixit S, Zado E, Marchlinski FE. Incidence and location of focal atrial fibrillation triggers in patients undergoing repeat pulmonary vein isolation: implications for ablation strategies. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003;14:685–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Biase L, Conti S, Mohanty P, Bai R, Sanchez J, Walton D, et al. General anesthesia reduces the prevalence of pulmonary vein reconnection during repeat ablation when compared with conscious sedation: results from a randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:368–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura K, Naito S, Kaseno K, Tsukada N, Sasaki T, Hayano M, et al. Optimal observation time after completion of circumferential pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation to prevent chronic pulmonary vein reconnections. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:5300–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaitani K, Kurotobi T, Kobori A, Okajima K, Yao T, Nakazawa Y, et al. Late re-conduction sites in the second session after pulmonary vein isolation using adenosine provocation for atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2014;16:521–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin FS, Ip JE, Markowitz SM, Liu CF, Thomas G, Lerman BB, et al. Limitations of dormant conduction as a predictor of atrial fibrillation recurrence and pulmonary vein reconnection after catheter ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38:598–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kautzner J, Neuzil P, Lambert H, Peichl P, Petru J, Cihak R, et al. EFFICAS II: optimization of catheter contact force improves outcome of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2015;17:1229–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakamura K, Naito S, Sasaki T, Nakano M, Minami K, Nakatani Y, et al. Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015;44:235–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakamura K, Naito S, Sasaki T, Minami K, Take Y, Goto E, et al. Silent cerebral ischemic lesions after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients on 5 types of periprocedural oral anticoagulation—predictors of diffusion-weighted imaging-positive lesions and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Circ J. 2016;80:870–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neuzil P, Reddy VY, Kautzner J, Petru J, Wichterle D, Shah D, et al. Electrical reconnection after pulmonary vein isolation is contingent on contact force during initial treatment: results from the EFFICAS I study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:327–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reddy VY, Shah D, Kautzner J, Schmidt B, Saoudi N, Herrera C, et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:1789–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hachiya H, Hirao K, Takahashi A, Nagata Y, Suzuki K, Maeda S, et al. Clinical implications of reconnection between the left atrium and isolated pulmonary veins provoked by adenosine triphosphate after extensive encircling pulmonary vein isolation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007;18:392–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang CY, Jiang RH, Matsuo S, Liu Q, Fan YQ, Zhang ZW, et al. Early detection of pulmonary vein reconnection after isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a comparison of ATP-induction and reassessment at 30 minutes postisolation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20:1382–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyazaki S, Kuwahara T, Kobori A, Takahashi Y, Takei A, Sato A, et al. Impact of adenosine-provoked acute dormant pulmonary vein conduction on recurrence of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:256–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Han S, Hwang C. How to achieve complete and permanent pulmonary vein isolation without complications. Korean Circ J. 2014;44:291–300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patel PJ, D’Souza B, Saha P, Chik WW, Riley MP, Garcia FC. Electroanatomic mapping of the intercaval bundle in atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:1262–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah DC, Lambert H, Nakagawa H, Langenkamp A, Aeby N, Leo G. Area under the real-time contact force curve (force-time integral) predicts radiofrequency lesion size in an in vitro contractile model. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:1038–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thiagalingam A, D’Avila A, Foley L, Guerrero JL, Lambert H, Leo G, et al. Importance of catheter contact force during irrigated radiofrequency ablation: evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model using a force-sensing catheter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:806–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Shah DC, Lambert H, Leo G, Aeby N, et al. Novel contact force sensor incorporated in irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter predicts lesion size and incidence of steam pop and thrombus. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008;1:354–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ikeda A, Nakagawa H, Lambert H, Shah DC, Fonck E, Yulzari A, et al. Relationship between catheter contact force and radiofrequency lesion size and incidence of steam pop in the beating canine heart: electrogram amplitude, impedance, and electrode temperature are poor predictors of electrode-tissue contact force and lesion size. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:1174–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kohki Nakamura
    • 1
  • Shigeto Naito
    • 1
  • Takehito Sasaki
    • 1
  • Kentaro Minami
    • 1
  • Yutaka Take
    • 1
  • Satoru Shimizu
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Yamaguchi
    • 1
  • Toshiaki Yano
    • 1
  • Michiharu Senga
    • 1
  • Eiji Yamashita
    • 1
  • Yoshinao Sugai
    • 1
  • Koji Kumagai
    • 1
  • Nobusada Funabashi
    • 2
  • Shigeru Oshima
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyGunma Prefectural Cardiovascular CenterMaebashi CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular Science and MedicineChiba University Graduate School of MedicineChiba CityJapan

Personalised recommendations