Efficacy of the optimal ablation index–targeted strategy for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation: the OPTIMUM study results
The ablation index (AI) is a recently developed marker for ablation lesion quality that incorporates contact force (CF), time, and power in a weighted formula. There is a paucity of information on whether AI-guided pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) could improve the outcome in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluated the optimal AI threshold for avoiding acute pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR), and to compare the efficacy of optimal AI-targeted PVI with that of conventional CF-guided PVI.
Seventy patients with AF (paroxysmal, 67%) were enrolled. In a phase 1 study, the patients underwent conventional CF-guided PVI (CON group), and the optimal AI threshold for avoiding acute PVR was identified. In phase 2, the patients underwent AI-guided PVI (OAI group). We compared the acute PVR rate between the CON group and the OAI group to demonstrate the efficacy of AI-guided PVI.
In phase 1 (n = 38), acute PVR was observed in 57 of 532 (10.7%) segments. AI values of ≥ 450 at the anterior/roof segments and of ≥ 350 at the posterior/inferior/carina segments were identified as the optimal AI thresholds for avoiding acute PVR. In the phase 2 study targeting those AI values, the OAI group (n = 32) showed a significantly lower acute PVR rate than the CON group (4.2% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). The OAI group showed a higher minimum AI and smaller variations in AI values than the CON group.
Optimal AI-targeted PVI is feasible and could improve the acute outcome in patients with AF.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03389074.
KeywordsAtrial fibrillation Pulmonary vein isolation Ablation index
We thank Cho-Rong Jeong, Ji Seon Park, Jiseon Lee, and Junyeop Yeo for their assistance.
This research was conducted with support from the investigator-initiated study program of Biosense Webster, Inc. (IIS 457).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
SRL, EJL, WSC, MJC, SO declare that they have no conflict of interest. EKC received a research grant from Daiichi-Sankyo, BMS/Pfizer, and Biosense Webster.
- 6.Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, Natale A, Albengue JP, Kautzner J, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the safety and effectiveness of a contact force-sensing irrigated catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the TactiCath contact force ablation catheter study for atrial fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) study. Circulation. 2015;132:907–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Das M, Loveday JJ, Wynn GJ, Gomes S, Saeed Y, Bonnett LJ, et al. Ablation index, a novel marker of ablation lesion quality: prediction of pulmonary vein reconnection at repeat electrophysiology study and regional differences in target values. Europace. 2017;19:775–83.Google Scholar
- 11.David EH. Determinants of lesion size during radiofrequency catheter ablation: the role of electrode-tissue contact pressure and duration of energy delivery. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1991;6:509–15.Google Scholar
- 12.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Nakagawa H, Ikeda A, Govari A, Papaioannou T, Constantine G, Bar-Tal M. Prospective study using a new formula incorporating contact force, radiofrequency power and application time (force-power-time index) for quantifying lesion formation to guide long continuous atrial lesions in the beating canine heart. Circulation. 2013;128:A12104.Google Scholar
- 17.Ganesan AN, Shipp NJ, Brooks AG, Kuklik P, Lau DH, Lim HS, et al. Long-term outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;2:e004549.Google Scholar
- 23.El Haddad M, Taghji P, Phlips T, Wolf M, Demolder A, Choudhury R, et al. Determinants of acute and late pulmonary vein reconnection in contact force-guided pulmonary vein isolation: identifying the weakest link in the ablation chain. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017;10(4):3004867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Taghji P, El Haddad M, Phlips T, Wolf M, Knecht S, Vandekerckhove Y, et al. Evaluation of a strategy aiming to enclose the pulmonary veins with contiguous and optimized radiofrequency lesions in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a pilot study. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Phlips T, Taghji P, El Haddad M, Wolf M, Knecht S, Vandekerckhove Y, et al. Improving procedural and one-year outcome after contact force-guided pulmonary vein isolation: the role of interlesion distance, ablation index, and contact force variability in the ‘CLOSE’-protocol. Europace. 2018;20:f419–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar