Next Article in Journal
Three Visual–Diagnostic Methods for the Detection of Enamel Cracks: An In Vitro Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Clinical Influence of Ethanol Infusion in the Vein of Marshall on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Results of Feasibility and Safety during Implantation and at 60-Day Follow-Up
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Predictive Value of Preoperative Serum Albumin and Postoperative Albumin Drop (ΔAlb) for Complications after Pancreas Surgery: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vein of Marshall Collateralization during Ethanol Infusion in Atrial Fibrillation: Solution for Effective Myocardium Staining
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm12030971
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation under the Guidance of Relatively Low Ablation Index Values for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Outcomes and Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmias

by
Shuyu Jin
1,2,†,
Weidong Lin
2,†,
Xianhong Fang
2,
Hongtao Liao
2,
Xianzhang Zhan
2,
Lu Fu
2,
Junrong Jiang
2,
Xingdong Ye
2,
Huiyi Liu
2,
Yanlin Chen
2,
Sijia Pu
2,3,
Shulin Wu
2,
Hai Deng
1,2,* and
Yumei Xue
1,2,*
1
The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
2
Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510080, China
3
School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(3), 971; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030971
Submission received: 2 December 2022 / Revised: 23 January 2023 / Accepted: 24 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Updates on Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in effectiveness and safety of high-power, short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) guided by relatively low ablation index (AI) values and conventional RFA in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) patients. Methods: The HPSD RFA strategy (40–50 W, AI 350–400 for anterior, 320–350 for posterior wall; n = 547) was compared with the conventional RFA strategy (25–40 W, without AI; n = 396) in PAF patients who underwent their first ablation. Propensity-score matching analyses were used to compare the outcomes of the two groups while controlling for confounders. Results: After using propensity-score matching analysis, the HPSD group showed a higher early recurrence rate (22.727% vs. 13.636%, p = 0.003), similar late recurrence rate, and comparable safety (p = 0.604) compared with the conventional group. For late recurrent atrial arrhythmia types, the rate of regular atrial tachycardia was significantly higher in the HPSD group (p = 0.013). Additionally, the rate of chronic pulmonary vein reconnection and non-pulmonary vein triggers during repeat procedures was similar in both groups. Conclusions: For PAF patients, compared with the conventional RFA strategy, the HPSD RFA strategy at relatively low AI settings had a higher early recurrence rate, similar long-term success rate, and comparable safety.

1. Introduction

With global population aging and chronic disease survival rates increasing, both the incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) show a tendency of deterioration [1]. In the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, catheter ablation to improve symptoms of AF recurrences was given a Class I recommendation for AF refractory to medical therapy [2]. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), acting as the cornerstone of AF radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) [3,4], aims to produce continuous, transmural, and durable lesions around the pulmonary veins (PVs). The ablation index (AI) is a novel marker of lesion quality during RFA that is strongly correlated with lesion depth, width, and volume [5]. Compared with conventional applications (20–35 W at the posterior wall, 35–40 W in the other segments, 10–30 s), the high-power, short-duration (HPSD) ablation strategy is characterized by higher radiofrequency power (≥40 W) and shorter duration (5–15 s). In vitro and in vivo models demonstrated that the HPSD RFA strategy made transmural lesions broader and shallower, with fewer steam pops than the conventional RFA strategy at proper settings [6]. Multiple studies have been conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of the HPSD strategy. However, whether the HPSD strategy is more effective than the conventional strategy is still debated. Compared to the conventional strategy, Kewcharoen J et al. [7] reported that the HPSD strategy was not associated with increased freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia at the 12-month follow-up, but other studies [8,9] showed that the HPSD strategy had higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia. Pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR) and non-PV triggers could be the dominant mechanism of paroxysmal AF (PAF) recurrence [10,11]. Furthermore, age, gender, left atrial (LA) size, deterioration of the left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, posterior wall isolation, and CHA2DS2-VASc scores have been found to be independent risk factors associated with AF recurrence after RFA [12,13,14]. Meanwhile, animal studies indicate that the HPSD settings can create more durable lesions [15,16], which may reduce the rate of chronic PVR. However, little data regarding chronic PVR patterns and non-PV triggers in repeat procedures have been published comparing the HPSD and conventional RFA settings. Therefore, in this study, we sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of the HPSD RFA settings guided by relatively low AI values with the conventional RFA settings for PAF. In addition, we evaluated the sites of chronic PVR and non-PV triggers in patients of both groups who underwent repeat ablation in order to provide further guidance for RFA.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

In this single-center prospective cohort study, we investigated 1176 PAF patients who underwent RFA at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital from July 2019 to March 2021 and followed them prospectively. All the patients signed a written informed consent form for ablation procedures. All the participants met the following criteria: (1) included patients’ age ≥ 18; (2) patients with PAF refractory to medical therapy and undergoing initial catheter ablation. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) previous cardiac surgeries or/and AF ablations; (2) a history of rheumatic valvular disease and ischemic heart disease; (3) LA diameter > 55 mm; (4) patients who failed to complete the procedure due to complications.
All the ablation procedures were performed by nine doctors with over 300 ablation experiences each. Anti-arrhythmia drugs (AADs) were stopped five half-lives prior to ablation. All the patients were required to uninterruptedly take non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for at least 3 weeks prior to the ablation procedure. LA thrombus was excluded by transesophageal echocardiography or PV computed tomography (CT) within 72 h before the procedure. NOACs were suspended once on the morning of the procedure and recovered 4 h after the procedure.

2.2. Ethics Statement

The registry was approved by the ethics committee of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital (No. GDREC2019568H, approved on 23 September 2019) and local institutional review boards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

2.3. Ablation Procedure

All the patients underwent RFA under conscious sedation with fentanyl. Under local anesthesia, the right femoral vein was punctured three times, a 7F vascular sheath was put in place, and two 8.5F SL1 vascular sheaths were delivered. A diagnostic decapolar catheter (Triguy™ Steerable Decapolar Mapping Catheter; APT Medical, Shenzhen, China) was placed in the coronary sinus. Intravenous heparin was continuously administered to maintain an activated coagulation time (ACT) at 300 to 350 s during the procedure. After two successful transseptal punctures, three-dimensional mapping of the LA was obtained using a multielectrode catheter (PentaRay Nav Catheter or Lasso; Biosense-Webster Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA) with the guidance of the CARTO three-dimensional mapping system (Biosense Webster Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA). Then, an open-irrigated, 3.5 mm cooled-tip catheter (Thermocool SMART TOUCH® Uni-Directional Catheter or Thermocool SMART TOUCH® SF Uni-Directional Navigation Catheter; Biosense Webster Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA) was used for ablation. All accepted bilateral PVI, non-PV triggers, and additional linear ablations were performed at the operators’ discretion. If there was an absence of isolation, touch-up ablation was performed until complete PVI was achieved. Ibutilide or/and electrical cardioversion was/were administered when the AF rhythm remained unconverted during ablation.
In the HPSD group guided by AI, PVI was performed at 40–50 W targeting AI values of 350–400 in the anterior, 350–380 at the superior and inferior wall of the PV, and 320–350 at the posterior wall of the LA with a CF of 5–15 g, irrigation flow rate of 15–30 mL/min per site (ST catheter at 30 mL/min; STSF catheter at 15 mL/min; specific sites adjusted according to operators’ experience), and an inter-lesion distance (ILD) of 4 mm. For additional ablation, in the HPSD group, the output power of the mitral isthmus and posterior wall isolation were 40–50 W with AI values of 350–400, that of the tricuspid isthmus was 35 W, and that of the coronary sinus was 25 W. While in the conventional group without the guidance of AI, the power setting of PVs was limited to 35 W at the anterior wall, 25–35 W at the posterior wall, and 35–40 W in the other segments. RF applications did not last more than 30 s, and every single RF delivery was performed with 10 to 20 g CF.
For recurrent patients who underwent repeat ablation procedures, the appropriate three-dimensional mapping system was selected according to the type of recurrent arrhythmia, which included an Ensite Velocity system (Abbott, St. Paul, MN, USA), a Rhythmia™ system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), and a CARTO system.

2.4. Follow-Up

Patients were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, followed by 6-month intervals up to one year, by electrocardiogram (ECG) or 24 h Holter and when symptoms were reported. Atrial arrhythmia recurrence was defined as any symptomatic or asymptomatic atrial arrhythmia lasting > 30 s after ablation. Recurrence within 3 months after the first ablation was defined as early recurrence, and recurrence after 3 months was defined as late recurrence. For patients suffering from recurrent atrial arrhythmias, repeat procedures were considered after 3 months.
Oral anticoagulants were continued for 3 months after ablation procedure unless uncontrolled bleeding or invasive procedures appeared. Long-term use of anticoagulants depended on CHA2DS2-VASc scores. AADs were appropriately selected according to operators’ discretion after ablation. After excluding the contraindications, AADs (amiodarone or propafenone) were routinely used for 3 months postoperatively, and the decision to continue AADs was based on the patient’s Holter results and symptoms 3 months after the procedure. If recurrence occurred during follow-up, the addition of AADs was recommended, and if the AF load was heavy and symptoms were severe, a repeat ablation was recommended.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (x ± s). Data were analyzed using Student’s t test for two-group comparisons if normally distributed or the Mann–Whitney U test for non-parametric two-group comparisons. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages (%), which were analyzed using a chi-squared test or Fisher exact test between two groups. We performed propensity-score matching using the nearest neighbor method without a replacement and a caliper at a 1:1 ratio of the two groups. The variables age, LA diameter, LVEF, left ventricular diastolic dimension, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and ablation strategy were included in the propensity-score matching. The standardized mean differences of all adjusted variables were under 0.02 after propensity-score matching. The time-to-arrhythmia recurrence was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to investigate any predictors associated with one-year AF recurrence. Multifactorial analysis of survival data was performed using Cox regression if the assumption of equal proportional risk was satisfied. If the assumption of equal proportional risk was not satisfied, a non-equal proportional Cox regression analysis was considered to study the effect of prognostic factors. The variables with p ≤ 0.2 in the univariate Cox regression analysis and age were included in the multivariate Cox regression analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients

A total of 1176 PAF patients who underwent their first ablation from July 2019 to March 2021 were included, of whom 29 (2.466%) were lost to follow-up. A total of 943 patients completed at least the one-year follow-up, of whom 547 patients were in the HPSD RFA strategy group and 396 received the conventional RFA strategy. In the HPSD group and conventional group, the average age was 60.005 ± 10.977 and 60.333 ± 11.216 years, with 63.620% and 60.606% of patients being male, respectively. The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups except LA diameter (p = 0.002) and left ventricular diastolic dimension (p = 0.042) (Table 1).

3.2. Procedural Results

PVI was achieved in all patients. Additionally, the ablation strategies were different between the two groups. Superior vena cava isolation was performed in 88 (16.088%) and 58 (14.646%) patients in the HPSD and conventional groups, respectively. The proportion of mitral isthmus ablation (7.130% vs. 1.768%, p < 0.001) and epicardial ablation in the coronary sinus (3.473% vs. 0.505%, p = 0.002) was significantly higher in the HPSD group than in the conventional group. The proportions of intraoperative use of ibutilide (10.603% vs. 19.192%, p < 0.001) and electrical cardioversion (3.839% vs. 8.838%, p < 0.001) were higher in the conventional group (Table 2).
After using propensity-score matching analysis, new subsets (HPSD and conventional group, n = 308 each) were obtained. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with regard to baseline characteristics and performed procedures (Supplementary materials, Tables S1 and S2).

3.3. Follow-Up Outcomes

The follow-up durations differed between the two groups, so we evaluated the atrial arrhythmia recurrence within 12 months after a single ablation. Propensity-score matching analysis showed that the early recurrence rate in the HPSD group was still significantly higher than in the conventional group (22.727% vs. 13.636%, p = 0.003). For early recurrent atrial arrhythmia types, 54.286% had AF in the HPSD group compared with 52.381% in the conventional group (p = 0.845). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in the late recurrence rate after a single procedure between two groups (19.805% vs. 15.584%, p = 0.170). However, for late recurrent atrial arrhythmia types, regular atrial tachycardia was more common in the HPSD group compared with the conventional group (65.574% vs. 41.667%, p = 0.013) (Table 3).
In the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the early recurrence rate was higher in the HPSD group than in the conventional group (log rank, p = 0.036 before propensity score matching; p = 0.004 after propensity score matching) (Figure 1). Additionally, the rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year after a single procedure was similar between the two groups (Log rank, p = 0.446 before propensity score matching; p = 0.169 after propensity score matching) (Figure 2). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for important covariates including sex, age, and LA diameter, LA diameter was associated with late recurrence within a year (hazard ratio (HR) 1.046, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.016–1.077, p = 0.003) (Table 4).

3.4. Findings in Repeat Procedures

During 11.19 ± 0.82 months follow-up, a total of 41 patients underwent repeat procedures, including one patient who underwent repeat ablation for atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) and another for LA appendage closure due to high CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Eventually, 15 patients in the HPSD group and 24 patients in the conventional group were analyzed. In the conventional group, one patient underwent a third procedure for recurrent regular atrial tachycardia. Superior vena cava isolation was performed in 2 (13.333%) and 5 (20.833%) patients in the HPSD and conventional groups, respectively. Additionally, the proportion of cavotricuspid isthmus ablation was higher in the conventional group than in the HPSD group (6.667% vs. 50.000%, p = 0.006). The baseline characteristics and first procedure characteristics of the recurrent patients are shown in Table 5 and Table 6.
The spatial distribution of chronic PVR differed between the two groups. In the HPSD group, chronic PVR occurred in 9 out of 15 (60.000%) patients, including 5 left superior PVs, 4 left inferior PVs, 7 right superior PVs, and 5 right inferior PVs. In the conventional group, 18 out of 24 (75.000%) patients had chronic PVR during redo procedures, with 9 left superior PVs, 8 left inferior PVs, 13 right superior PVs, and 12 right inferior PVs. There was no significant difference in the rate of chronic PVR between the two groups (p = 0.478). Additionally, the two groups had similar rates of non-PV triggers (40.000% vs. 29.167%, p = 0.361). In terms of PV triggers, there were 5/15 (33.333%) recurrences with a total of 5 sites in the HPSD group and 8/24 (33.333%) recurrences with a total of 15 sites in the conventional group. Meanwhile, for non-PV triggers, there were 6/15 (40.000%) recurrences with a total of 6 sites in the HPSD group and 7/24 (29.167%) recurrences with a total of 13 sites in the conventional group (Table 7). The non-PV trigger sites were located in the Marshall vein, the epicardial surface of the LA roof, the cavotricuspid isthmus, the mitral isthmus, the right atrial free wall, the mitral annulus, the superior vena cava, and the coronary sinus. The specific trigger sites are detailed in Figure 3 and Supplementary Materials Table S3.
The dots indicate the site of the trigger. The red dots represent the HPSD group, and the blue dots represent the conventional group.

3.5. Safety Outcomes

As is shown in Table 8, no significant difference was observed in the incidence rate of complications between two groups (p = 0.604). During the perioperative period, in the HPSD group, five patients had pericardial effusion, of which one patient had a reduction in pericardial effusion after conservative treatment, three patients received insertion of a pericardial drain, and one patient required surgical treatment. In the conventional group, three patients who developed pericardial effusion required insertion of a pericardial drain. During the follow-up period, no patients in either group had thromboembolic events or strokes. However, two patients died in the conventional group, one due to cancer progression and the other was unclear.

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Findings

This single-center, prospective cohort study demonstrated that the HPSD RFA strategy guided by relatively low AI values had a higher early recurrence rate, a similar late recurrence rate, and comparable safety when compared with the conventional strategy in PAF patients during the one-year follow-up. For recurrent atrial arrhythmia types, the rate of early recurrence types was similar in both groups, but the rate of recurrence with regular atrial tachycardia for late recurrent patients was significantly higher in the HPSD group according to propensity-score matching. Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the rate of chronic PVR and non-PV triggers during repeat procedures in both groups.

4.2. The Success Rate with Different Application Settings

The success rate of AF ablation has risen over the past two decades with the evolution of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping, contact force sensing catheters, and catheter irrigation [17]. Cryoablation is a promising alternative technique to RFA for treating PAF with encouraging results. Chen YH et al. [18] demonstrated that cryoablation presented comparable long-term AF/atrial tachycardial-free survival and procedure-related adverse events compared with RFA. Meanwhile, cryoablation markedly shortens the procedure time with negligible impact on the fluoroscopy time. However, the HPSD ablation strategies are only applicable when using single point-by-point ablation devices. AI and lesion size index (LSI) are novel ablation quality markers to predict lesion quality that incorporates CF, time, and power in a weighted formula [19]. However, the exact power settings and AI values that result in a high success rate with AF are unclear. Currently, the setting of foreign and domestic mainstream AI is 400–600 for the anterior wall and 400–450 for the posterior wall. However, the results vary from study to study, with similar or slightly higher success rates in the HPSD group with the guidance of AI values than in the conventional group [20,21,22,23]. With the targeted AI values of 450–500 for the anterior wall and 350–400 for the posterior wall in two groups, Liu Z et al. demonstrated the HPSD-AI group (≥45 W) had lower recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 12 months (6.8% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.011), higher PV first-pass isolation, shorter ablation times, and fewer patients with anatomical leakages and sites of unreached AI compared with the low power-AI group (<35 W) [24]. O’Brien J et al. [23] illustrated that with a power setting of 50 W and target AI values of 550–600 in the anterior LA region and 400–450 in the posterior LA region, there was no significant difference in the success rate at 12-month follow-up compared with the AI-guided conventional group with a power setting of 35–40 W (80.2% vs. 82.8%, p = 0.918). Similarly, for PAF patients, there was no significant difference in the success rate between the HPSD group (40 W) and the conventional group (30 W) at 12 months of follow-up under the same AI-guided ablation (400 for posterior and 500 for anterior wall) in both groups (92% vs. 84%, respectively, p = 0.22) [25]. In addition, the measurement of the local impedance might predict optimal lesion formation. A local impedance drop more than 21.80 ohms on the anterior wall and more than 18.30 ohms on the posterior wall significantly increased the probability of creating a successful lesion [26]. Boussoussou M et al. [27] found that LA wall thickness did not influence the first-pass isolation rate during PVI guided by the modified CLOSE protocol (AI 400 on the posterior wall and 500 on the anterior wall, CF 10–40 g). Only the diameter of the right superior PV was associated with the success rate of right-sided first pass isolation, as a wider right superior PV diameter led to an easier first-pass isolation.
However, fewer studies have compared the effectiveness of a HPSD group with a conventional group guided by relatively low AI values. Solimene F et al. [28] reported on 156 AF patients (124 PAF patients and 32 PeAF patients) undergoing AI-guided PVI with target AI values of 400–450 for anterior and 330–350 for posterior LA regions, with 89.2% of patients (91% PAF vs. 78% PeAF) being in the sinus rhythm at 14 ± 6 months. Okamatsu H et al. [29] investigated 60 AF patients undergoing AI-guided PVI (AI values of 400 at the anterior, 360 at the posterior LA wall, and 260 on the esophagus) randomly assigned to 3 groups (LP group: 30 W at the anterior and 20 W at the posterior wall; MP group: 40 W at the anterior and 30 W at the posterior wall; HP group: 50 W at the anterior, 40 W at the posterior wall and 30 W on the esophagus) and found no significant difference among the groups (100%, 95%, and 95% in LP, MP, and HP groups, respectively, p = 0.44).
Additionally, a very high power ablation strategy applied clinically improved procedural efficiency with comparable safety compared with the conventional strategy. Kottmaier M et al. [30] demonstrated that very high power, short-duration (vHPSD) applications with a high power of 70 W for 5–7 s had significantly less arrhythmia recurrence during the one-year follow-up (26.9% vs. 34.9%, p < 0.013) with no major complications. Additionally, vHPSD ablation performed by applying 90 W for 4 s during follow-up had more than a 90% success rate with comparable safety [31,32]. A prospective, observational cohort study showed that both HPSD (50 W, AI 500 on the anterior and 400 on the posterior LA wall) and vHPSD RFA settings (90 W/4 s) shorten procedure and RF time and result in a higher rate of first-pass isolation at 9-month AF recurrence rate (10%, 8% and 36%, p < 0.01) compared to LPLD RFA settings (30 W, AI 500 on the anterior and 400 on the posterior LA wall). Moreover, the presence of first-pass isolation was associated with a lower AF recurrence rate at 9 months (OR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.24, p < 0.01) [33].
In our study, after using propensity-score matching, compared with the conventional RFA strategy (without AI, 35 W at anterior wall, 25–35 W at the posterior wall, and 35–40 W was applied in the other segments), the HPSD RFA strategy with relatively lower AI values (40–50 W, AI values of 350–400 for anterior, 350–380 for superior and inferior, and 320–350 for posterior LA wall) had higher early recurrence, similar freedom from atrial arrhythmia, and comparable safety during 12 months of follow-up. Additionally, we are a high-volume electrophysiology center with operators who have over 10 years of AF ablation experience, and there may be no significant difference between the guidance with AI and non-AI ablation. AI is a quantitative metric that may help shorten the learning curve. We used a relatively low AI-guided ablation, which may reflect better long-term outcomes if ablation guided with a relatively high AI is currently available at other centers.
The internal aspect of the LA is relatively smooth, but its wall thickness is not uniform, with an average thickness of 4.5 ± 0.6 mm (range, 3.5–6.5 mm) at the roof, 3.9 ± 0.7 mm (range, 2.5–4.9 mm) at the left lateral wall, and 3.3 ± 1.2 mm (range, 1.5–4.8 mm) at the anterior wall, 2 mm near the vestibule of the mitral annulus, and 4.1 ± 0.7 mm (range, 2.5–5.3 mm) at the posterior wall. The wall thickness of PVs varied from heart to heart. At 0.5 cm away from the junction, the thickness of the left superior PV (LSPV), left inferior PV (LIPV), right superior PV (RSPV), and right inferior PV (RIPV) was 2.8 ± 0.5 mm (range, 1.9–3.5 mm), 1.5 ± 0.4 mm (range, 0.9–2.1 mm), 2.5 ± 0.5 mm (range, 1.8–3.3 mm) and 2.0 ± 0.4 mm (range, 1.5–2.5 mm), respectively. At 0.5 cm away from the junction, the thickness of the LSPV, LIPV, RSPV, and RIPV was 2.3 ± 0.4 mm (range, 1.8–2.8 mm), 1.2 ± 0.3 mm (range, 0.5–1.7 mm), 2.0 ± 0.3 mm (range, 1.5–2.5 mm), and 1.5 ± 0.2 mm (range, 0.9–2.2 mm), respectively. Additionally, the LA posterior wall thickness increased from the most superior to the most inferior measured level, whereas the wall was thinner in the middle and between the inferior venous orifices in those with AF (for AF patients: 2.1 ± 0.9 mm between the superior PVs, 2.2 ± 1.0 mm in the center of the posterior LA wall, and 2.5 ± 1.3 mm between the inferior PVs; for non-AF patients: 2.3 ± 1.0 mm between the superior PVs, 2.6 ± 1.0 mm in the center of the posterior LA wall, and 2.9 ± 1.3 mm between the inferior PVs) [34,35,36]. The myocardium of the left lateral ridge at its superior level was thicker than at its inferior level (2.8 ± 1.1 (range 1.5–4.2 mm) vs. 1.7 ± 0.8 mm (range 0.5–3.5 mm), respectively, p < 0.001) [37]. The minimal distance between the right PV antrum, left PV antrum, LA posterior wall, and esophageal wall was 6.3 ± 2.8 mm (range, 3.4–11.5 mm), 5.6 ± 2.2 mm (range, 3.3–10.5 mm), and 6.2 ± 2.5 mm (range, 3.6–13.5 mm), respectively [38]. The HPSD RFA strategy with a power of 50 W for 7 s (LSI 4.8 ± 0.52) creates wider but shallower lesions that had a diameter of 4.98 ± 0.91 mm and a depth of 2.2 ± 0.76 mm, whereas the conventional RFA strategy with a power of 25 W for 30 s (LSI 4.73 ± 0.59) had a diameter of 4.45 ± 0.74 mm and a depth of 2.8 ± 1.56 mm [39]. Additionally, the HPSD settings for 90 W/4 s in the beating heart of swine produced wider lesions (6.02 ± 0.2 mm vs. 4.43 ± 1.0 mm) and similar depth (3.58 ± 0.3 mm vs. 3.53 ± 0.6 mm) compared with the conventional RFA strategy for 25 W/20 s (CF of two groups range from 5–40 g) [16]. From the anatomy of the LA, the thickness of the posterior wall ranged from 2.5 mm to 5.3 mm [36]. Therefore, using relatively conservative AI values in patients is more consistent with safety principles, while AI values of 320–350 for posterior walls are able to balance effectiveness and safety.

4.3. Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia

In a recent publication by Vassallo F et al. [40], the HPSD RFA strategy increased the incidence of early recurrence and reduced late recurrence compared with the conventional strategy, while AT or AFL occurring during the blanking period is more common in the HPSD group. However, Bunch et al. [41] reported a similar recurrence of AF at one year and three years between two groups, and a higher rate of AFL at one year and three years was observed in patients treated with the HPSD RFA. In our study, the propensity-score matching analysis showed that a similar recurrence of AF was observed during the blanking period in both groups, while a higher rate of atrial arrhythmia was observed after one year’s follow-up in patients treated with the HPSD RFA strategy.
The early recurrence for AF patients was associated with an inflammatory process caused by the 40–50 W power setting used in this ablation protocol [42]. After the blanking period, the spontaneous resolution of the arrhythmias with sinus rhythm conversion may be explained by the decrease in inflammatory responses or the use of AADs. Because the HPSD RFA strategy had relatively low AI values, shallower lesions, and less total energy, transmural damage may not be achieved, resulting in no difference in the late recurrence rate between the two groups. Therefore, further studies are required to explore the most optimal power setting and AI values for RFA to yield greater clinical value.
PVI is the cornerstone of AF ablation, whereas PVR is attributed to catheter instability, tissue edema, and reversible non-transmural injury [43]. Therefore, the continuous and transmural lines are key to the success of ablation. In animal studies, HPSD applications resulted in 100% contiguous lines with all transmural and improved lesions showing lesion-to-lesion consistency compared with conventional applications [15,16]. Recent studies [44,45,46,47] have shown different consequences in terms of chronic PVR during the second procedure between two groups. Yavin HD et al. [47] demonstrated that incidence of chronic PVR during the redo procedure was lower in a HPSD group than in a conventional group (16.66% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.03), and reconnection sites occurred in the septal aspect of the right PV or the anterior left PV in the HPSD group and in the anterior left PV, septal right PV, and posterior wall in the conventional group. However, Hansom SP et al. [45] reported that the right PV carinal segments had a higher rate of reconnection in HPSD applications compared with conventional applications, but there was no difference in chronic PVR between the two groups.
In our study, there was no difference in the proportion of chronic PVR during repeat procedure between the two groups. Some patients who did not undergo redo procedures had recurrence during the follow-up period. Additionally, areas of chronic PVR were co-located at sites of decreased catheter stability in both groups. Reconnection sites occurred more in right PVs and left carina in both groups. In terms of anatomy, it is more difficult for a catheter to reach right PVs than left PVs. Furthermore, the myocardial thickness of the carina is thicker, and the catheter attachment of the carina is more difficult, and thus the HPSD strategy with conservative AI values and lower energy may lead to non-transmural lesions. Therefore, for all the reasons listed above, we may underestimate the rate of chronic PVR, contributing to chronic PVR in both groups. Non-PV triggers were frequently found in the superior vena cava, LA anterior wall, LA posterior wall, coronary sinus, and vein of Marshall [48]. In our study, since 15% of patients in both groups underwent superior vena cava isolation in the first ablation procedure, the number of patients requiring superior vena cava isolation in the repeat ablation procedure was minimal. Additionally, both groups had similar rates of PV triggers. The proportion of non-PV triggers was relatively high in the HPSD group compared with the conventional group, but there was no significant difference in non-PV triggers between the two groups.
This implies that the relatively low AI values might not have produced transmural injury lesions, while the thicker carina and the difficulty of catheter apposition during the procedure contributed to the chronic PVR in both groups. Furthermore, a limited number of recurrent patients had repeat procedures, and additional lesions were performed during the initial procedure in both groups, which might have reduced the incidence of non-PV triggers. More well-designed and large-scale RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

4.4. Safety Outcomes

Safety during ablation RFA is of worthwhile concern. The primary reason for tissue injury during RFA is thermally mediated, including resistive and conductive heating. It causes irreversible damage to the myocardium once a temperature of approximately 50 °C has been reached [49]. Contrary to the conventional ablation strategy, the HPSD ablation strategy results in higher resistive heating, lower conductive heating, larger lesion diameters, and smaller lesion depths, which may reduce collateral injury to surrounding structures such as the esophagus [16,50]. HPSD ablation with a power setting of 50 W for 6 s will not result in severe esophageal temperature increases when lesions are >20 mm away from a temperature sensor [51]. Via intraoperative esophageal temperature monitoring or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 24 h post-ablation, it can be seen that the two groups have similar esophageal temperature dynamics and comparable esophageal tissue injury results [52,53]. In addition to the incidence of esophageal injury, the overall complications were very low in the HPSD application performed at 45–50 W, with one death due to an atrioesophageal fistula and 33 cases of cardiac tamponade in 10,284 patients [54]. Similar to other findings, the HPSD RFA strategy with relatively low AI values appears to be as safe as the conventional RFA strategy. Additionally, combined with previous anatomical data on the LA, the thickness of the posterior wall ranges from 2.5 mm to 5.3 mm, and AI values of 320–350 in the posterior wall of the LA may have a positive effect on the prevention of atrioesophageal fistula.

5. Limitations

There are several limitations to our study. First, this study is a single-center study. Additionally, there were variations in the ablation parameters and ablation strategies compared with other centers. Thus, the results need to be further validated by clinical randomized prospective studies. In addition, limited by way of the follow-up, the onset time may not be recorded in time for patients with asymptomatic recurrence, which may underestimate the rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmia. Additionally, not all patients with recurrence underwent electrophysiological examination and a repeat ablation, which may bias the proportion of chronic PVR and non-PV triggers during repeat procedures. Finally, in our study, we lacked data on procedure time, ablation time, and fluoroscopy time, resulting in an inability to compare efficacy between the two groups in many respects. We still need a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled study with uniform ablation strategy to further validate our findings.

6. Conclusions

Compared with the conventional group, the HPSD group with relatively low AI settings had a higher early recurrence rate and a similar late recurrence rate with comparable safety. Additionally, whereas both groups exhibited a similar recurrence rate of AF throughout the blanking period, patients treated with the HPSD RFA strategy experienced a higher rate of atrial arrhythmia after the one-year follow-up. Meanwhile, the rate of chronic PVR and non-PV triggers was similar between the two groups. The HPSD RFA strategy with relatively low AI settings was demonstrated to be a feasible, effective, and safe approach to PAF ablation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12030971/s1; Table S1: Baseline characteristics of the study patients after propensity-score matching; Table S2: Procedure characteristics after propensity-score matching; Table S3: The specific trigger sites in both groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.F.; data curation, S.J.; formal analysis, J.J.; funding acquisition, Y.X.; methodology, Y.C. and S.P.; resources, X.Y.; software, L.F. and H.L. (Huiyi Liu); supervision, H.L. (Hongtao Liao), X.Z. and S.W.; writing—original draft, S.J. and W.L.; writing—review and editing, H.D. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Science and Technology Programs of Guangdong Province (No. 2019B020230004), the Science and Technology Programs of Guangdong Province (No. 2020B1111170011), the Guangdong special funds for science and technology innovation strategy, China (Stability support for scientific research institutions affiliated with Guangdong Province-GDCI 2021), and the Zhongnanshan medical foundation of Guangdong Province (No. 202151).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 and approved by the ethics committee of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital (No. GDREC2019568H, approved on 23 September 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kornej, J.; Börschel, C.S.; Benjamin, E.J.; Schnabel, R.B. Epidemiology of Atrial Fibrillation in the 21st Century: Novel Methods and New Insights. Circ. Res. 2020, 127, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hindricks, G.; Potpara, T.; Dagres, N.; Arbelo, E.; Bax, J.J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Boriani, G.; Castella, M.; Dan, G.A.; Dilaveris, P.E.; et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 373–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Haïssaguerre, M.; Jaïs, P.; Shah, D.C.; Takahashi, A.; Hocini, M.; Quiniou, G.; Garrigue, S.; Le Mouroux, A.; Le Métayer, P.; Clémenty, J. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 339, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Kantachuvessiri, A. Pulmonary veins: Preferred site for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Lung 2002, 31, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kawaji, T.; Hojo, S.; Kushiyama, A.; Nakatsuma, K.; Kaneda, K.; Kato, M.; Yokomatsu, T.; Miki, S. Limitations of lesion quality estimated by ablation index: An in vitro study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Winkle, R.A. HPSD ablation for AF high-power short-duration RF ablation for atrial fibrillation: A review. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2021, 32, 2813–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kewcharoen, J.; Techorueangwiwat, C.; Kanitsoraphan, C.; Leesutipornchai, T.; Akoum, N.; Bunch, T.J.; Navaravong, L. High-power short duration and low-power long duration in atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2021, 32, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, C.F.; Wu, J.; Jin, C.L.; Liu, M.J.; Xu, Y.Z. Comparison of high-power short-duration and low-power long-duration radiofrequency ablation for treating atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Cardiol. 2020, 43, 1631–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ravi, V.; Poudyal, A.; Abid, Q.U.; Larsen, T.; Krishnan, K.; Sharma, P.S.; Trohman, R.G.; Huang, H.D. High-power short duration vs. conventional radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace 2021, 23, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buist, T.J.; Zipes, D.P.; Elvan, A. Atrial fibrillation ablation strategies and technologies: Past, present, and future. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2021, 110, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cherian, T.S.; Callans, D.J. Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation after Radiofrequency Ablation: What to Expect. Card. Electrophysiol. Clin. 2020, 12, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kisheva, A.; Yotov, Y. Risk factors for recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Anatol. J. Cardiol. 2021, 25, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kranert, M.; Shchetynska-Marinova, T.; Liebe, V.; Doesch, C.; Papavassiliu, T.; Akin, I.; Borggrefe, M.; Hohneck, A. Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation in Dependence of Left Atrial Volume Index. In Vivo 2020, 34, 889–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Winkle, R.A.; Mead, R.H.; Engel, G.; Kong, M.H.; Salcedo, J.; Brodt, C.R.; Patrawala, R.A. High-power, short-duration atrial fibrillation ablations using contact force sensing catheters: Outcomes and predictors of success including posterior wall isolation. Heart Rhythm 2020, 17, 1223–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Barkagan, M.; Contreras-Valdes, F.M.; Leshem, E.; Buxton, A.E.; Nakagawa, H.; Anter, E. High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: Safety, efficacy, and long-term durability. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 1287–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Leshem, E.; Zilberman, I.; Tschabrunn, C.M.; Barkagan, M.; Contreras-Valdes, F.M.; Govari, A.; Anter, E. High-Power and Short-Duration Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Biophysical Characterization. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 4, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parameswaran, R.; Al-Kaisey, A.M.; Kalman, J.M. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: Current indications and evolving technologies. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2021, 18, 210–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, Y.H.; Lu, Z.Y.; Xiang, Y.; Hou, J.W.; Wang, Q.; Lin, H.; Li, Y.G. Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace 2017, 19, 784–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Virk, S.A.; Bennett, R.G.; Trivic, I.; Campbell, T.; Kumar, S. Contact Force and Ablation Index. Card. Electrophysiol. Clin. 2019, 11, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kiliszek, M.; Krzyżanowski, K.; Wierzbowski, R.; Winkler, A.; Smalc-Stasiak, M. The value of the ablation index in patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation. Kardiol. Pol. 2020, 78, 1015–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, X.; Gui, C.; Wen, W.; He, Y.; Dai, W.; Zhong, G. Safety and Efficacy of High Power Shorter Duration Ablation Guided by Ablation Index or Lesion Size Index in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2021, 2021, 5591590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pranata, R.; Vania, R.; Huang, I. Ablation-index guided versus conventional contact-force guided ablation in pulmonary vein isolation—Systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol. J. 2019, 19, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. O’Brien, J.; Obeidat, M.; Kozhuharov, N.; Ding, W.Y.; Tovmassian, L.; Bierme, C.; Chin, S.H.; Chu, G.S.; Luther, V.; Snowdon, R.L.; et al. Procedural efficiencies, lesion metrics, and 12-month clinical outcomes for Ablation Index-guided 50 W ablation for atrial fibrillation. Europace 2021, 23, 878–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, Z.; Liu, L.F.; Liu, X.Q.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.P.; Yang, X.C.; Chen, M.L. Ablation index-guided ablation with milder targets for atrial fibrillation: Comparison between high power and low power ablation. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 949918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhu, X.; Wang, C.; Chu, H.; Li, W.; Zhou, H.; Zhong, L.; Li, J. Effectiveness and Safety of High-Power Radiofrequency Ablation Guided by Ablation Index for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2022, 2022, 5609764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Szegedi, N.; Salló, Z.; Perge, P.; Piros, K.; Nagy, V.K.; Osztheimer, I.; Merkely, B.; Gellér, L. The role of local impedance drop in the acute lesion efficacy during pulmonary vein isolation performed with a new contact force sensing catheter-A pilot study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boussoussou, M.; Szilveszter, B.; Vattay, B.; Kolossváry, M.; Vecsey-Nagy, M.; Salló, Z.; Orbán, G.; Péter, P.; Katalin, P.; Vivien, N.K.; et al. The effect of left atrial wall thickness and pulmonary vein sizes on the acute procedural success of atrial fibrillation ablation. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 38, 1601–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Solimene, F.; Schillaci, V.; Shopova, G.; Urraro, F.; Arestia, A.; Iuliano, A.; Maresca, F.; Agresta, A.; La Rocca, V.; De Simone, A.; et al. Safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation guided by Ablation Index module. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2019, 54, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Okamatsu, H.; Koyama, J.; Sakai, Y.; Negishi, K.; Hayashi, K.; Tsurugi, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Nakao, K.; Sakamoto, T.; Okumura, K. High-power application is associated with shorter procedure time and higher rate of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation in ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 2751–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kottmaier, M.; Popa, M.; Bourier, F.; Reents, T.; Cifuentes, J.; Semmler, V.; Telishevska, M.; Otgonbayar, U.; Koch-Büttner, K.; Lennerz, C.; et al. Safety and outcome of very high-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace 2020, 22, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Orbán, G.; Salló, Z.; Perge, P.; Ábrahám, P.; Piros, K.; Nagy, K.V.; Osztheimer, I.; Merkely, B.; Gellér, L.; Szegedi, N. Characteristics of Very High-Power, Short-Duration Radiofrequency Applications. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 941434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Reddy, V.Y.; Grimaldi, M.; De Potter, T.; Vijgen, J.M.; Bulava, A.; Duytschaever, M.F.; Martinek, M.; Natale, A.; Knecht, S.; Neuzil, P.; et al. Pulmonary Vein Isolation with Very High Power, Short Duration, Temperature-Controlled Lesions: The QDOT-FAST Trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2019, 5, 778–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Salló, Z.; Perge, P.; Balogi, B.; Orbán, G.; Piros, K.; Herczeg, S.; Nagy, K.V.; Osztheimer, I.; Ábrahám, P.; Merkely, B.; et al. Impact of High-Power and Very High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation on Procedure Characteristics and First-Pass Isolation During Pulmonary Vein Isolation. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 935705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ho, S.Y.; Cabrera, J.A.; Sanchez-Quintana, D. Left atrial anatomy revisited. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2012, 5, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Platonov, P.G.; Ivanov, V.; Ho, S.Y.; Mitrofanova, L. Left atrial posterior wall thickness in patients with and without atrial fibrillation: Data from 298 consecutive autopsies. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2008, 19, 689–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ho, S.Y.; Sanchez-Quintana, D.; Cabrera, J.A.; Anderson, R.H. Anatomy of the left atrium: Implications for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 1999, 10, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cabrera, J.A.; Ho, S.Y.; Climent, V.; Sánchez-Quintana, D. The architecture of the left lateral atrial wall: A particular anatomic region with implications for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sánchez-Quintana, D.; Cabrera, J.A.; Climent, V.; Farré, J.; Mendonça, M.C.; Ho, S.Y. Anatomic relations between the esophagus and left atrium and relevance for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2005, 112, 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Enomoto, Y.; Nakamura, K.; Ishii, R.; Toyoda, Y.; Asami, M.; Takagi, T.; Hashimoto, H.; Hara, H.; Sugi, K.; Moroi, M.; et al. Lesion size and adjacent tissue damage assessment with high power and short duration radiofrequency ablation: Comparison to conventional radiofrequency ablation power setting. Heart Vessel. 2021, 36, 1438–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vassallo, F.; Meigre, L.L.; Serpa, E.; Cunha, C.; Simoes, A., Jr.; Carloni, H.; Amaral, D.; Meira, K.; Pezzin, F. Changes and impacts in early recurrences after atrial fibrillation ablation in contact force era: Comparison of high-power short-duration with conventional technique-FIRST experience data. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2021, 62, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bunch, T.J.; May, H.T.; Bair, T.L.; Crandall, B.G.; Cutler, M.J.; Mallender, C.; Weiss, J.P.; Osborn, J.S.; Day, J.D. Long-term outcomes after low power, slower movement versus high power, faster movement irrigated-tip catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm 2020, 17, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ukita, K.; Egami, Y.; Kawamura, A.; Nakamura, H.; Matsuhiro, Y.; Yasumoto, K.; Tsuda, M.; Okamoto, N.; Matsunaga-Lee, Y.; Yano, M.; et al. Clinical impact of very early recurrence of atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation. J. Cardiol. 2021, 78, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Han, S.; Hwang, C. How to Achieve Complete and Permanent Pulmonary Vein Isolation without Complications. Korean Circ. J. 2014, 44, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Kumagai, K.; Toyama, H. High-power, short-duration ablation during Box isolation for atrial fibrillation. J. Arrhythmia 2020, 36, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hansom, S.P.; Alqarawi, W.; Birnie, D.H.; Golian, M.; Nery, P.B.; Redpath, C.J.; Klein, A.; Green, M.S.; Davis, D.R.; Sheppard-Perkins, E.; et al. High-power, short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation compared with a conventional approach: Outcomes and reconnection patterns. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2021, 32, 1219–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ejima, K.; Higuchi, S.; Yazaki, K.; Kataoka, S.; Yagishita, D.; Kanai, M.; Shoda, M.; Hagiwara, N. Comparison of high-power and conventional-power radiofrequency energy deliveries in pulmonary vein isolation using unipolar signal modification as a local endpoint. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 1702–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yavin, H.D.; Leshem, E.; Shapira-Daniels, A.; Sroubek, J.; Barkagan, M.; Haffajee, C.I.; Cooper, J.M.; Anter, E. Impact of High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation on Long-Term Lesion Durability for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2020, 6, 973–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gianni, C.; Mohanty, S.; Trivedi, C.; Di Biase, L.; Natale, A. Novel concepts and approaches in ablation of atrial fibrillation: The role of non-pulmonary vein triggers. Europace 2018, 20, 1566–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nath, S.; DiMarco, J.P.; Haines, D.E. Basic aspects of radiofrequency catheter ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 1994, 5, 863–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bourier, F.; Duchateau, J.; Vlachos, K.; Lam, A.; Martin, C.A.; Takigawa, M.; Kitamura, T.; Frontera, A.; Cheniti, G.; Pambrun, T.; et al. High-power short-duration versus standard radiofrequency ablation: Insights on lesion metrics. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 1570–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barbhaiya, C.R.; Kogan, E.V.; Jankelson, L.; Knotts, R.J.; Spinelli, M.; Bernstein, S.; Park, D.; Aizer, A.; Chinitz, L.A.; Holmes, D. Esophageal temperature dynamics during high-power short-duration posterior wall ablation. Heart Rhythm 2020, 17, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yavin, H.D.; Bubar, Z.P.; Higuchi, K.; Sroubek, J.; Kanj, M.; Cantillon, D.; Saliba, W.I.; Tarakji, K.G.; Hussein, A.A.; Wazni, O.; et al. Impact of High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation on Esophageal Temperature Dynamic. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2021, 14, e010205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Baher, A.; Kheirkhahan, M.; Rechenmacher, S.J.; Marashly, Q.; Kholmovski, E.G.; Siebermair, J.; Acharya, M.; Aljuaid, M.; Morris, A.K.; Kaur, G.; et al. High-Power Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Using Late Gadolinium Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Novel Index of Esophageal Injury. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 4, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Winkle, R.A.; Mohanty, S.; Patrawala, R.A.; Mead, R.H.; Kong, M.H.; Engel, G.; Salcedo, J.; Trivedi, C.G.; Gianni, C.; Jais, P.; et al. Low complication rates using high power (45–50 W) for short duration for atrial fibrillation ablations. Heart Rhythm 2019, 16, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Jcm 12 00971 g001 550
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period. (A) Freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period before propensity-score matching; (B) Freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period after propensity-score matching.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period. (A) Freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period before propensity-score matching; (B) Freedom from arrhythmia during the blanking period after propensity-score matching.
Jcm 12 00971 g001
Jcm 12 00971 g002 550
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up. (A) Freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up before propensity-score matching; (B) Freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up after propensity-score matching.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up. (A) Freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up before propensity-score matching; (B) Freedom from arrhythmia at one-year follow-up after propensity-score matching.
Jcm 12 00971 g002
Jcm 12 00971 g003 550
Figure 3. Anteroposterior schematic diagram of trigger sites during repeat procedure for recurrent patients.
Figure 3. Anteroposterior schematic diagram of trigger sites during repeat procedure for recurrent patients.
Jcm 12 00971 g003
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study patients.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study patients.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 547) (%)Conventional Group (n = 396) (%)p Value
Age (year)60.005 ± 10.97760.333 ± 11.2160.654
Male348 (63.620)240 (60.606)0.346
Hypertension222 (40.585)161 (40.657)0.982
Diabetes76 (13.894)57 (14.394)0.828
Stroke53 (9.689)39 (9.848)0.935
Peripheral vascular disease32 (5.850)29 (7.323)0.364
Heart failure (LVEF ≤ 50%)13 (2.377)16 (4.040)0.144
CHA2DS2-VASc scores2.013 ± 1.7672.154 ± 1.6850.217
Smoke70 (12.797)47 (11.869)0.670
Prior PCI42 (7.678)31 (7.828)0.932
LA diameter (mm)35.901 ± 4.86736.949 ± 5.3870.002
LVEF (%)64.244 ± 6.18564.108 ± 6.4980.749
LVDD (mm)45.266 ± 4.30845.887 ± 4.8420.042
AF duration [months, M (P25, P75)] *12.000 (5.000–36.000)12.000 (3.000–48.000)0.750
Pacemaker implantation during follow-up2 (0.366)2 (0.505)1.000
LAAC24 (4.388)16 (4.040)0.794
AF: atrial fibrillation; CHA2DS2-VASc = congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category (female); HPSD: high-power, short-duration; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LVDD: left ventricular diastolic dimension; LAAC: left atrial appendage closure; LA: left atrial; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; *: results are presented as median (interquartile range).
Table
Table 2. Procedure characteristics.
Table 2. Procedure characteristics.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 547) (%)Conventional Group (n = 396) (%)p Value
Performed procedure
 SVC isolation88 (16.088)58 (14.646)0.546
 LA roof line ablation61 (11.152)54 (13.636)0.250
 LA inferior line ablation16 (2.925)13 (3.283)0.627
 LA anterior wall line ablation4 (0.731)2 (0.505)0.987
 CTI ablation165 (30.165)143 (36.111)0.055
 MI ablation39 (7.130)7 (1.768)<0.001
 Endocardial ablation in coronary sinus16 (2.925)9 (2.273)0.538
 Epicardial ablation in coronary sinus19 (3.473)2 (0.505)0.002
 CFAE ablation8 (1.463)3 (0.758)0.492
Intraoperative use of ibutilide58 (10.603)76 (19.192)<0.001
Intraoperative conversion to sinus rhythm with ibutilide37/58 (63.793)52/76 (68.421)0.574
Intraoperative use of electrical cardioversion21 (3.839)35 (8.838)<0.001
Intraoperative conversion to sinus rhythm with electrical cardioversion21/21 (100.000)35/35 (100.000)1.000
CFAE: complex fractionated atrial electrograms; CTI: cavotricuspid isthmus; HPSD: high-power, short-duration; LA: left atrial; MI: mitral isthmus; SVC: superior vena cava.
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of recurrent atrial arrhythmias between two groups after a single procedure.
Table 3. Characteristics of recurrent atrial arrhythmias between two groups after a single procedure.
VariablePre-Propensity Score MatchingPost-Propensity Score Matching
HPSD Group (n = 547) (%)Conventional Group (n = 396) (%)p ValueHPSD Group (n = 308) (%)Conventional Group (n = 308) (%)p Value
Early recurrence129 (23.583)72 (18.182)0.04670 (22.727)42 (13.636)0.003
  AF81 (62.791)37 (51.389)0.11538 (54.286)22 (52.381)0.845
  Atrial tachycardia48 (37.209)35 (48.611) 32 (45.714)20 (47.619)
Late recurrence 107 (19.561)70 (17.677)0.46561 (19.805)48 (15.584)0.170
  AF39 (36.449)34 (48.571)0.10921 (34.426)28 (58.333)0.013
  Atrial tachycardia68 (63.551)36 (51.429) 40 (65.574)20 (41.667)
AF: atrial fibrillation; HPSD: high-power, short-duration.
Table
Table 4. Cox regression analysis for one-year atrial arrhythmia recurrence.
Table 4. Cox regression analysis for one-year atrial arrhythmia recurrence.
VariableUnivariateMultivariate
HR (95% CI)p ValueHR (95% CI)p Value
Age (year)1.000 (0.987–1.014)0.9520.996 (0.982–1.010)0.576
Male0.798 (0.592–1.076)0.1390.736 (0.539–1.006)0.055
Hypertension0.892 (0.658–1.208)0.459
Stroke1.069 (0.843–1.356)0.582
Peripheral vascular disease1.047 (0.583–1.881)0.879
Heart failure (LVEF ≤ 50%)0.470 (0.066–3.353)0.451
CHA2DS2-VASc scores0.978 (0.897–1.066)0.612
Smoke0.834 (0.518–1.343)0.456
Prior PCI0.949 (0.540–1.669)0.856
LA diameter (mm)1.043 (1.013–1.073)0.0051.046 (1.016–1.077)0.003
LVEF (%)1.007 (0.983–1.032)0.579
LVDD (mm)0.997 (0.964–1.030)0.848
AF duration (months)0.999 (0.996–1.003)0.774
HPSD ablation 0.999 (0.996–1.003)0.774
AF: atrial fibrillation; CHA2DS2-VASc = congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category (female); CI: confidence intervals; HPSD: high-power, short-duration; HR: hazard ratio; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LVDD: left ventricular diastolic dimension; LA: left atrial; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention.
Table
Table 5. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing repeat procedures.
Table 5. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing repeat procedures.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 15) (%)Conventional Group (n = 24) (%)p Value
Age (year) 54.867 ± 9.70261.125 ± 11.5210.088
Male8 (53.333)12 (50.000)1.000
Hypertension3 (20.000)13 (54.167)0.049
Diabetes1 (6.667)3 (12.500)1.000
Stroke0 (0.000)3 (12.500)0.271
Peripheral vascular disease0 (0.000)4 (16.667)0.146
Heart failure (LVEF ≤ 40%)0 (0.000)0 (0.000)1.000
CHA2DS2-VASc scores1.333 ± 1.4472.625 ±1.7890.024
Smoke2 (13.333)3 (12.500)1.000
LA diameter (mm)34.286 ± 3.22137.833 ± 5.9390.047
LVEF (%)63.286 ± 3.95065.042 ± 3.9620.195
LVDD (mm)45.143 ± 3.63446.000 ± 4.2940.535
AF duration [months, M (P25, P75)] *12 (6.000–72.000)15 (3.500–57.000)0.898
AF: atrial fibrillation; HPSD: high-power, short-duration; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; LVDD; left ventricular diastolic dimension; LA: left atrial; *: results are presented as median (interquartile range).
Table
Table 6. First procedure characteristics of patients undergoing repeat procedures.
Table 6. First procedure characteristics of patients undergoing repeat procedures.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 15) (%)Conventional Group (n = 24) (%)p Value
Performed procedure
 SVC isolation2 (13.333)5 (20.833)0.686
 LA roof line ablation1 (6.667)3 (12.500)1.000
 LA inferior line ablation0 (0.000)0 (0.000)1.000
 LA anterior wall line ablation1 (6.667)0 (0.000)0.385
 CTI ablation1 (6.667)12 (50.000)0.006
 MI ablation0 (0.000)1 (4.167)1.000
 Endocardial ablation in coronary sinus0 (0.000)0 (0.000)1.000
 Epicardial ablation in coronary sinus1 (6.667)0 (0.000)0.385
 CFAE ablation0 (0.000)1 (4.167)1.000
Intraoperative use of ibutilide2 (13.333)6 (25.000)0.450
Intraoperative conversion to sinus rhythm with ibutilide1/2 (50.000)5/6 (83.333)0.464
Intraoperative use of electrical cardioversion1 (6.667)2 (8.333)1.000
Intraoperative conversion to sinus rhythm with electrical cardioversion1/1 (100.00)2/2 (100.00)1.000
CFAE: complex fractionated atrial electrograms; CTI: cavotricuspid isthmus; HPSD: high-power, short-duration; LA: left atrial; MI: mitral isthmus; SVC: superior vena cava.
Table
Table 7. Repeat procedure characteristics of recurrent patients.
Table 7. Repeat procedure characteristics of recurrent patients.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 15) (%)Conventional Group (n = 24) (%)p Value
Recurrent arrhythmia type 0.907
 PAF7 (46.667)12 (50.000)
 PeAF1 (6.667)2 (8.333)
 Atrial tachycardia6 (40.000)7 (29.167)
 AF + Atrial tachycardia1 (6.667)3 (12.500)
PVR during redo procedure9 (60.000)18 (75.000)0.478
 Left superior PVR5 (33.333)9 (37.500)1.000
 Left inferior PVR4 (26.667)8 (33.333)0.734
 Right superior PVR7 (46.667)13 (54.167)0.748
 Right inferior PVR5 (33.333)12 (50.000)0.343
 Left carina1 (6.667)4 (16.667)0.631
 Right carina1 (6.667)5 (20.833)0.376
PV triggers5 (33.333)8 (33.333)1.000
Non-PV triggers6 (40.000)7 (29.167)0.361
AF: atrial fibrillation; HPSD: high-power, short-duration; PV: pulmonary vein; PVR: pulmonary vein reconnection; PAF: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; PeAF: persistent atrial fibrillation.
Table
Table 8. Complications in the two groups.
Table 8. Complications in the two groups.
VariableHPSD Group (n = 547) (%)Conventional Group (n = 396) (%)p Value
Total complication events5 (0.914)5 (1.263)0.604
 During the perioperative period
  Pericardial effusion5 (0.914)3 (0.758)1.000
 During the follow-up period
  Strokes0 (0.000)0 (0.000)1.000
  Thromboembolic Events0 (0.000)0 (0.000)1.000
  Death *0 (0.000)2 (0.505)0.176
HPSD: high-power, short-duration; *: two patients died in the conventional group, one due to cancer progression and the other unknown.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, S.; Lin, W.; Fang, X.; Liao, H.; Zhan, X.; Fu, L.; Jiang, J.; Ye, X.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y.; et al. High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation under the Guidance of Relatively Low Ablation Index Values for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Outcomes and Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmias. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030971

AMA Style

Jin S, Lin W, Fang X, Liao H, Zhan X, Fu L, Jiang J, Ye X, Liu H, Chen Y, et al. High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation under the Guidance of Relatively Low Ablation Index Values for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Outcomes and Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmias. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(3):971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030971

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Shuyu, Weidong Lin, Xianhong Fang, Hongtao Liao, Xianzhang Zhan, Lu Fu, Junrong Jiang, Xingdong Ye, Huiyi Liu, Yanlin Chen, and et al. 2023. "High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation under the Guidance of Relatively Low Ablation Index Values for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Outcomes and Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmias" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 3: 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030971

APA Style

Jin, S., Lin, W., Fang, X., Liao, H., Zhan, X., Fu, L., Jiang, J., Ye, X., Liu, H., Chen, Y., Pu, S., Wu, S., Deng, H., & Xue, Y. (2023). High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation under the Guidance of Relatively Low Ablation Index Values for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Long-Term Outcomes and Characteristics of Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmias. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(3), 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030971

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop