Pulmonary Vein Isolation in 2012: Is It Necessary to Perform a Time Consuming Electrophysical Mapping or Should We Focus on Rapid and Safe Therapies? A Retrospective Analysis of Different Ablation Tools

• Main Authors: Petra Maagh, Thomas Butz, Gunnar Plehn, Arndt Christoph, Axel Meissner
• Other Authors: The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2013
• Subjects: Arctic
• Online Access: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.683.2995; http://www.medsci.org/v10p0024.pdf

licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. Received: 2012.06.21; Accepted: 2012.10.15; Published: 2012.12.07 Background: Pulmonary Vein Isolation (PVI) is evolving as an established treatment option in atrial fibrillation (AF). Different fluoroscopy-guided ablation devices exist either on the basis of expandable circumferential and mesh designs with mapping and ablation of pulmonary vein potentials, or of a balloon technology, a “single shot ” device with a purely anatomical ap-proach. Systematic comparisons between procedure duration (PD), fluoroscopy time (FT) and clinical outcome in using different ablation tools are lacking in the literature. Methods: In a single center retrospective analysis, 119 PVI procedures were performed between August 2008 and March 2011 in paroxysmal AF (PAF, 59.7%) and persistent AF (persAF, 40.3%) patients with mean age of 59.4±10.3 years and history of AF since 8.1±9.7 months. The PVI procedures were evaluated by comparing PD and FT using I) the High Density Mesh Mapper (HDMM), II) the High Density Mesh Ablator (HDMA), and III) the Arctic Front ® Cryoballoon. The primary endpoints were FT and PD, the secondary endpoint