Diverse activation patterns during persistent atrial fibrillation by noncontact charge-density mapping of human atrium.

BACKGROUND: Global simultaneous recording of atrial activation during atrial fibrillation (AF) can elucidate underlying mechanisms contributing to AF maintenance. A better understanding of these mechanisms may allow for an individualized ablation strategy to treat persistent AF. The study aims to characterize left atrial endocardial activation patterns during AF using noncontact charge-density mapping. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with persistent AF were studied. Activation patterns were characterized into three subtypes: (i) focal with centrifugal activation (FCA); (ii) localized rotational activation (LRA); and (iii) localized irregular activation (LIA). Continuous activation patterns were analyzed and distributed in 18 defined regions in the left atrium. RESULTS: A total of 144 AF segments with 1068 activation patterns were analyzed. The most common pattern during AF was LIA (63%) which consists of four disparate features of activation: slow conduction (45%), pivoting (30%), collision (16%), and acceleration (7%). LRA was the second-most common pattern (20%). FCA accounted for 17% of all activations, arising frequently from the pulmonary veins (PVs)/ostia. A majority of patients (24/25; 96%) showed continuous and highly dynamic patterns of activation comprising multiple combinations of FCA, LRA, and LIA, transitioning from one to the other without a discernible order. Preferential conduction areas were typically seen in the mid-anterior (48%) and lower-posterior (40%) walls. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation is characterized by heterogeneous activation patterns identified in PV-ostia and non-PV regions throughout the LA at varying locations between individuals. Clinical implications of individualized ablation strategies guided by charge-density mapping need to be determined.

Validation of Dipole Density Mapping During Atrial Fibrillation and Sinus Rhythm in Human Left Atrium.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to validate the accuracy of noncontact electrograms against contact electrograms in the left atrium during sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Noncontact mapping offers the opportunity to assess global cardiac activation in the chamber of interest. A novel noncontact mapping system, which records intracardiac voltage to derive cellular charge sources (dipole density), allows real-time mapping of AF to guide ablation. METHODS: Noncontact and contact unipolar electrogram pairs were recorded simultaneously from multiple locations. Morphology correlation and timing difference of reconstructed electrograms obtained from a noncontact catheter were compared with those from contact electrograms obtained from a contact catheter at the same endocardial locations. RESULTS: A total of 796 electrogram pairs in SR and 969 electrogram pairs in AF were compared from 20 patients with persistent AF. The median morphology correlation and timing difference (ms) in SR was 0.85 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.71 to 0.94) and 6.4 ms (IQR: 2.6 to 17.1 ms); in AF was 0.79 (IQR: 0.69 to 0.88) and 14.4 ms (IQR: 6.7 to 26.2 ms), respectively. The correlation was stronger and the timing difference was less when the radial distance (r) from the noncontact catheter center to the endocardium was ≤ 40 versus > 40 mm; 0.87 (IQR: 0.72 to 0.94) versus 0.73 (IQR: 0.56 to 0.88) and 5.7 ms (IQR: 2.6 to 15.4 ms) versus 15.1 ms (IQR: 4.1 to 27.7 ms); p < 0.01 when in SR; 0.81 (IQR: 0.69 to 0.89) versus 0.67 (IQR: 0.45 to 0.82) and 12.3 ms (IQR: 5.9 to 21.8 ms) versus 28.3 ms (IQR: 16.2 to 36.0 ms); p < 0.01 when in AF. CONCLUSIONS: This novel noncontact dipole density mapping system provides comparable reconstructed atrial electrogram measurements in SR or AF in human left atrium when the anatomical site of interest is ≤40 mm from the mapping catheter.

Characterising the difference in electrophysiological substrate and outcomes between heart failure and non-heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

Aims: Characterizing the differences in substrate and clinical outcome between heart failure (HF) and non-heart failure (non-HF) patients undergoing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods and results: Using complex fractionated electrograms (CFE) as a surrogate marker of substrate complexity, we compared the bi-atrial substrate in patients with persistent AF with and without HF, at baseline and after ablation, to determine its impact on clinical outcome. In this retrospective analysis of two prospective studies, 60 patients underwent de-novo step-wise left atrial (LA) ablation, 30 with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% (non-HF group) and 30 with LVEF ≤ 35% (HF group). Multiple high-density bi-atrial CFE maps were acquired along with AF cycle length (AFCL) at each procedural stage. Change in bi-atrial CFE areas, AFCL and outcome data were then compared. In the non-HF group, higher CFE-areas were found at baseline and at each step of the procedure in the LA. In both LA and the right atrium (RA), baseline and final CFE area were also higher in the non-HF group. Single procedure, arrhythmia-free survival at 1 year was higher in the HF group compared with the non-HF group (72% vs. 43%, log rank P = 0.04). Final total bi-atrial CFE area was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence. Conclusions: CFE represents an important surrogate marker of atrial substrate complexity. The atrial substrate in persistent AF differs between HF and non-HF with the latter representing a more complex 'primary' bi-atrial myopathy. LA focussed ablation results in more extensive substrate modification in HF and better clinical outcomes as compared with non-HF.

Catheter ablation vs electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: The CASA-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) outcomes for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) remain suboptimal. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) provides an alternative approach in this difficult to treat cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare electrophysiological (EP) guided thoracoscopic SA with percutaneous CA as the first-line strategy in the treatment of LSPAF. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with de novo symptomatic LSPAF were recruited. Twenty-six patients underwent electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic SA. Conduction block was tested for all lesions intraoperatively by an independent electrophysiologist. In the CA group, 25 consecutive patients underwent stepwise left atrial (LA) ablation. The primary end point was single-procedure freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) lasting >30 seconds without antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months. RESULTS: Single- and multiprocedure freedom from AF/AT was higher in the SA group than in the CA group: 19 of 26 patients (73%) vs 8 of 25 patients (32%) (P = .003) and 20 of 26 patients (77%) vs 15 of 25 patients (60%) (P = .19), respectively. Testing of the SA lesion set by an electrophysiologist increased the success rate in achieving acute conduction block by 19%. In the SA group, complications were experienced by 7 of 26 patients (27%) vs 2 of 25 patients (8%) in the CA group (P = .07). CONCLUSION: In LSPAF, meticulous electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic SA as a first-line strategy may provide excellent single-procedure success rates as compared with those of CA, but there is an increased up-front risk of nonfatal complications.