Mobile electrocardiographic devices and healthcare utilization in post-atrial fibrillation ablation patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of mobile electrocardiogram (mECG) devices is becoming more prevalent. mECG devices allow instant access to recording arrhythmias and enable automatic rhythm interpretation. Providers can remotely evaluate patients and this may reduce in-person healthcare utilization. We sought to evaluate the utility of mECG devices in reducing healthcare utilization among patients who underwent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS: We identified a population of patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF presenting for their first AF ablation. Patients were divided into two groups: KardiaMobile (AliveCor, Mountain View, CA) mECG users and non-KardiaMobile users. Healthcare utilization was compared between the two groups for one year post-ablation. RESULTS: 184 patients were studied (76 KardiaMobile users, 108 non-KardiaMobile users). There was no difference in the number of office visits (p = 0.59), cardiac-specific emergency department visits (p = 0.26), cardiac-specific hospital admissions (p = 0.13), ablations or cardioversions completed (p = 0.24), telephone encounters (p = 0.05), patient electronic health record messages (p = 0.40), or cardiac imaging (transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiograms) tests ordered (p = 0.36). Exposure to the device was associated with a reduction in ambulatory cardiac monitor use (p = 0.04). There was no difference in sinus rhythm maintenance over 12 months by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log rank test p = 0.05) between groups. CONCLUSION: Mobile technology is available for heart rhythm monitoring and can give instant feedback to the user. mECG use is associated with a significant reduction in ambulatory cardiac monitor use in the post-ablation period. There was no difference in other AF-related healthcare utilization.

Pulmonary vein isolation alone versus pulmonary vein isolation with additional extensive ablation for paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.

Background: The value of additional ablation beyond pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is unclear, especially for persistent AF. It is uncertain whether substrate modification with additional extensive ablation improves outcomes. We reviewed our experience to determine whether pulmonary vein isolation with additional extensive ablation (PVIEA) improves outcomes compared to pulmonary vein isolation alone (PVIA) for AF ablation. Methods: Consecutive cases of patients with PVIA versus PVIEA were compared between September 9, 2013 and December 12, 2020. Procedural data collected include radiofrequency ablation delivery time (RADT) and arrhythmia inducibility. Clinical data collected include sinus rhythm maintenance post-procedure. Results: A total of 235 patients were studied (67 PVIA and 168 PVIEA). RADT was shorter when comparing ablation with PVIA versus PVIEA (32 vs. 40 min; p = .04). More arrhythmias were inducible with PVIEA (p < .01). There was no difference in sinus rhythm maintenance by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test p = .75), after 3 or 12 months between groups overall, and when stratified by AF type (paroxysmal and persistent), left atrial volume, CHA2DS2-VASc score, left ventricular ejection fraction, or catheter ablation setting (high-power short-duration, standard-power standard-duration, temperature-controlled non-contact-force). Conclusion: AF ablation with PVIA or PVIEA produces similar sinus rhythm maintenance overall and when stratified by catheter setting and AF type. PVIA reduced procedure times and less arrhythmias were inducible post-ablation.

Comparison of clinical and procedural outcomes between high-power short-duration, standard-power standard-duration, and temperature-controlled noncontact force guided ablation for atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation is a novel strategy using contact force-sensing catheters optimized for power-controlled radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigates the outcomes of HPSD (50 W delivered for up to 15 s, Lesion Size Index of 5-6) compared to standard-power standard-duration (SPSD) (20-25 W until 400-500 gram seconds, up to 60 s) and temperature-controlled noncontact (TCNC) (20-40 W up to 60 s of ablation) settings. METHODS: We studied consecutive cases of patients with AF undergoing pulmonary vein isolation with TCNC, SPSD, and HPSD between January 7th, 2013 and January 11th, 2019. Procedural data collected include time to isolate the left (LPVT) and right pulmonary veins (RPVT), total ablation time (TAT), and radiofrequency ablation delivery time (RADT). Clinical data collected include sinus rhythm maintenance postprocedure. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-one patients were studied (44 TCNC, 51 SPSD, 76 HPSD). RADT was shorter when comparing HPSD to SPSD (25 vs. 41 min; p < .01), HPSD to TCNC (25 vs. 76 min; p < .01), and SPSD to TCNC groups (41 vs. 76 min; p < .01). TAT, LPVT, and RPVT were reduced between HPSD versus SPSD, HPSD versus TCNC, and SPSD versus TCNC groups, respectively (p < .01). There was no difference in sinus rhythm maintenance by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log rank test p = .12), after 3 or 12 months between groups overall, and when stratified by AF type, left atrial volume, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score, or left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: AF ablation with HPSD reduced procedure times with similar sinus rhythm maintenance compared to SPSD and TCNC.