Prophylactic Colchicine After Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The PAPERS Study.

BACKGROUND: Pericarditis is common after radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: Study investigators hypothesized an empirical post-AF ablation treatment protocol with colchicine may reduce the incidence and severity of pericarditis. PAPERS (Post-Ablation PEricarditis Reduction Study) aimed to quantify the risks and benefits associated with prophylactic use of colchicine to prevent pericarditis following AF ablation. METHODS: PAPERS is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomized on the day of the procedure to receive no postprocedure prophylaxis (group A; standard of care arm) or colchicine 0.6 mg orally twice daily for 7 days starting immediately post-procedure (group B; study arm). All participants underwent a follow-up survey at 14 days postoperatively. The primary endpoint was the development of clinical pericarditis within 2 weeks following ablation. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of pericarditis by ablation type and medical therapy. RESULTS: Among 139 patients enrolled, 66 were randomized to standard of care (group A), and 73 patients were randomized to the colchicine arm (group B). The primary outcome of clinical pericarditis was reached in 7 of 66 (10.6%) patients in group A and in 7 of 73 (9.6%) patients in group B (P = 0.84). The rate of gastrointestinal discomfort was 10 of 66 (15%) in group A and 34 of 73 (47%) in group B (P < 0.001). There was an increased incidence of pericarditis in patients who underwent cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (17 of 50; 34%) in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (6 of 69; 8.7%; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic colchicine therapy initiated after the ablation procedure in patients with AF did not affect the incidence of post-ablation pericarditis and was associated with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal side effects.

Single-center experience of the FIRM technique to ablate paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation has had mixed results of published success, and most studies have had a follow-up for a year or less. We aimed to study a consecutive group of patients followed for at least 1.5 years, subgrouped into those with an initial FIRM ablation and those with a previous, failed ablation who now received a FIRM guided one, to evaluate for success in each group and factors that might affect success. METHODS: Of 181 patients, 167 were available for analysis. Group 1 (n = 122) had a first or primary ablation (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation [PAF] 51; persistent atrial fibrillation [PeAF] 71) and group 2 (n = 45) had a redo ablation (PAF 18; PeAF 27). All patients were done under general anesthesia. FIRM mapping was done in the right atrium first and then the left, and only rotors consistently seen on multiple epochs were ablated, using 15 to 30 W. Rotor ablation was discontinued when remapping showed elimination of rotational activity at the site. Wide area catheter ablation was done for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Routine follow-up was at 3, 6, and 12 months of the first year, with a Holter monitor at 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. Event recorders were given to patients with potential arrhythmic symptoms. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 16 months. Nearly 40% of patients had obstructive sleep apnea; mean body mass index was 32; and average left atrial size was 39.7 mm and 46.2 mm for PAF and PeAF patients, respectively. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was: in group 1 patients, 82.4% for PAF and 67.6% for PeAF patients; in group 2 patients, 83.3% for PAF, but only 40.7% for PeAF patients. Comparing outcomes for the first 10 patients studied to the next 20 or more done by three operators showed no difference, suggesting no learning curve affecting the ablation results. Furthermore, the univariate analysis did not show any demographic factor to have an independent significance for ablation success or failure. Spontaneous termination during rotor ablation occurred in 76.8% of PAF and 27.6% of PeAF patients but did not affect the long-term outcomes for maintenance of sinus rhythm. CONCLUSIONS: FIRM-guided atrial ablation plus PVI in our patient population resulted in good success from a recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in patients undergoing an initial ablation procedure. For those with persistent AF undergoing a second procedure now using FIRM guidance plus PVI, the results are lower. Further research is needed to define better the appropriate population for FIRM-guided ablation and the degree of ablation needed for success in these patients.

Patients with minimal atrial fibrillation events should not undergo concomitant atrial ablation during open heart procedures.

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated improved freedom from atrial fibrillation with intraoperative atrial ablation. However, the increased bypass time and the risk for ablation-related complications should be weighed against the benefits in the decision-making. It is important to establish reasonable criteria to define candidates for surgical ablation. Furthermore, the efficacy and short- and long-term risks related to surgical ablation need to be considered. This article reviews the data on surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation as it pertains to these important issues. As shown the evidence does not support surgical ablation at the time of coronary artery bypass graft in some patients.