20-11-2023 | Atrial Fibrillation | REVIEW
Intracardiac echocardiography–guided pulsed-field ablation for successful ablation of atrial fibrillation: a propensity-matched analysis from a large nationwide multicenter experience
Authors:
Antonio Dello Russo, Claudio Tondo, Vincenzo Schillaci, Michela Casella, Saverio Iacopino, Stefano Bianchi, Gaetano Fassini, Antonio Rossillo, Paolo Compagnucci, Marco Schiavone, Armando Salito, Ruggero Maggio, Laura Cipolletta, Sakis Themistoclakis, Claudio Pandozi, Pasquale Filannino, Pietro Rossi, Carlo Bonanno, Quintino Parisi, Maurizio Malacrida, Francesco Solimene
Published in:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly employed in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures, with the potential to enhance procedural efficacy. Nevertheless, there is currently a lack of evidence assessing the impact of ICE on the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety outcomes in the context of novel pulsed-field ablation (PFA) for AF.
Purpose
We aimed to assess whether the use of ICE could improve procedural parameters in a large population undergoing AF ablation with FARAPULSE™ catheter.
Methods
Consecutive patients who had undergone PFA of AF from nine Italian centers were included. In procedures where the ICE catheter was employed for guidance (ICE-guided group), it was used to maneuver the PFA catheter within the left atrium to achieve optimal contact with atrial structures.
Results
We analyzed 556 patients: 357 (66%) with paroxysmal AF, 499 (89.7%) de novo PVI. ICE-guided procedures (n = 138) were propensity matched with patients with a standard approach (n = 138), and their outcomes were compared. During ICE-guided procedures, no improvement in procedural metrics was recorded (ICE vs Standard, 23 ± 6 min vs 18.5 ± 9 min for time to PVI, p < 0.0001; 38.8 ± 7 vs 32.5 ± 5 number of PFA deliveries to achieve PVI, p < 0.0001; 68.8 ± 19 min vs 71.8 ± 29 min for primary operator time, p = 0.5301; 16.1 ± 8 min vs 18.2 ± 10 min for fluoroscopy time, p = 0.5476) except for support time (76.8 ± 26 min vs 91.4 ± 37 min, p = 0.0046). No major procedure-related adverse events were reported.
Conclusion
Our findings confirmed that PFA could be consistently performed in a rapid, safe, and efficacious manner. The use of ICE to guide PFA was not associated with an improvement in procedural metrics.