The Impact of Advances in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Devices on the Incidence and Prevention of Complications

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

The number of patients with atrial fibrillation currently referred for catheter ablation is increasing. However, the number of trained operators and the capacity of many electrophysiology labs are limited. Accordingly, a steeper learning curve and technical advances for efficient and safe ablation are desirable. During the last decades several catheter-based ablation devices have been developed and adapted to improve not only lesion durability, but also safety profiles, to shorten procedure time and to reduce radiation exposure. The goal of this review is to summarise the reported incidence of complications, considering device-related specific aspects for point-bypoint, multi-electrode and balloon-based devices for pulmonary vein isolation. Recent technical and procedural developments aimed at reducing procedural risks and complications rates will be reviewed. In addition, the impact of technical advances on procedural outcome, procedural length and radiation exposure will be discussed.

Disclosure
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The Heart Lung Centre of the Leiden University Medical Centre received unrestricted research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Lantheus Medical Imaging, St Jude Medical, Edwards Lifesciences and GE Healthcare, and unrestricted educational grants from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences and St Jude Medical. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Serge A Trines, Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Cardiology, C5-P, PO Box 9600; 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands. E: s.a.i.p.trines@lumc.nl
Received date
31 May 2018
Accepted date
17 July 2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/aer.2018.7.3

Catheter ablation is an effective strategy to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), which has evolved from a highly specialised technique to a first-line therapy.1–3 The cornerstone of ablation is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).4 Over the last decade, ablation devices have undergone technical improvements, aiming for better lesion durability and ablation outcomes. However, significant complications have been reported in survey studies and patient safety remains of concern.4–9 Although operators have become more experienced, technical advances with improved energy transfer may increase procedural risk. As a consequence, catheter design and ablation protocols have been adapted to prevent complications. For individualised patient care and device selection, knowledge of potential risks and benefits for the different available devices is important. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of type and incidence of complications and strategies for prevention for single-tip and multi-electrode radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) and balloon-based ablation devices.

Point-by-Point Radiofrequency Ablation

After evidence that the pulmonary veins (PVs) are the primary source of AF,10,11 non-cooled radiofrequency ablation of ectopic beats from the PVs has been introduced.12,13 Due to the high incidence of PV stenosis,14 ablation has evolved from segmental ablation of the PVs guided by a circular mapping catheter4,15,16 to wide-area circumferential PV isolation.17

Historical Overview

Catheter irrigation resulted in a lower risk for coagulum formation, allowing for higher energy transfer with larger and deeper lesions18,19 and improved outcome,20 with a current AF free survival of 46–94 % at 1-year follow-up (Table 1a/Table 1b). The introduction of three-dimensional electro-anatomical mapping systems (CARTO, Biosense Webster Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA and Ensite, Abbot, St Paul, MN, USA) and image-integration tools has been associated with improved efficacy.21–25 Contact-force (CF) measurement during ablation has been developed to improve lesion formation (Thermocool Smarttouch, Biosense and Tacticath, Abbot; Figure 1) with a reported one-year AF free survival between 52 and 94 % (Table 1a/Table 1b). There are conflicting reports whether CF improves ablation outcome (Table 1b),26,27 suggesting that CF parameters need to be validated.26 Data from a recent meta-analysis suggest that ablation guided by CF is associated with improved median outcome at 12-months follow-up.28 Recent developments focus on improved near-field resolution by combining recordings from large-tip electrodes with recordings from micro-electrodes (QDOT-micro technology for Biosense Webster Inc.).

Procedure Time

Procedural length has been associated with higher complication rates.29 Although radiation exposure can be reduced with 3D mapping systems,24 point-by-point ablation often requires longer procedure times compared with single-shot techniques. Reported mean procedural times range between 101 and 284 minutes (Table 1a/Table 1b). Contact-force has been associated with reduced procedure, ablation and fluoroscopy times28 and high-power-short-duration radiofrequency applications to further reduce procedure time are currently under investigation.30–32 Fluoroscopy time for RFCA, however, approaches to zero under increasing experience of 3D mappings systems and intracardiac electrocardiography.33,34

Overview of Literature on Radiofrequency Ablation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Radiofrequency Ablation With & Without Contact-Force

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Complications

The use of image integration and electro-anatomical mapping has been associated with fewer complications.20–24,35,36 Whether CF-guided ablation improves safety requires additional investigation. In a recent meta-analysis, the overall complication and tamponade rates were 3.8 % and 0.5 % for CF and 3.9 % and 0.9 % for non-CF ablation.28 Irrigated catheters (Thermocool™, Biosense and Coolpath™, Abbot) have been introduced to prevent endothelial charring in particular at sites with low blood flow.19 Indeed, with irrigation, less micro-embolic signals have been detected with trans-cranial Doppler.37 Advanced irrigation technology (Thermocool Surround Flow and Abbot FlexAbility) reduces irrigation volume with maintenance of the safety profile.38 Thromboembolic event rates (stroke and transient ischaemic attack) range between 0.2 and 1 % for irrigated catheters. Phrenic nerve palsy (PNP) is rare (0.01–0.6 %) and mainly transient. Similar, the reported incidence of oesophageal and vagal injury is low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.5 % (Table 1). However, a study focusing specifically on gastrointestinal complications reported an 11 % incidence of thermal oesophageal lesions and a 17 % incidence of gastroparesis.39 In the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database of 2689 ablations, the incidence of atrial-oesophageal fistula as a percentage of all reported complications for CF catheters was higher (5.4 %: 65 of 1202 cases) compared with non-CF catheters (0.9 %: 13 of 1487 cases).40 These numbers do not reflect the absolute incidence however. Pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) after CF-guided ablation was only reported in one study with an incidence of 0.7 %.41

Multi-electrode Catheters

Historical Overview

Multi-electrode RF catheters have the potential to reduce ablation and procedural time. The pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) can deliver RF energy in different duty-cycled unipolar/bipolar modes. One-year AF-free survival off AAD with the first-generation device was 61 % in patients with paroxysmal AF.42 To reduce the embolic risk potentially associated with non-irrigated RF catheters, submerging the catheter in saline before introduction and maintaining an activated-clotting time (ACT) above 350 seconds have been recommended. As interaction of electrodes 1 and 10 was associated with occurrence of asymptomatic cerebral embolism,43 the current generation catheter (PVAC-Gold; Figure 1) has only nine electrodes with a larger inter-electrode spacing and different electrode composition (from platinum to gold) for better heat conductivity. Reported one-year AF free survival with PVAC-Gold ranges from 60 to 71 %.44–46 Studies comparing the efficacy of PVAC and PVAC-Gold found no significant difference at 1-year follow-up (64–65 % and 68–70 %, respectively).45,47 Other (irrigated) multi-electrode catheters in the past were withdrawn because of safety concerns (e.g. new multipolar irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter, Biosense Webster Inc., Multi-array septal catheter/Multi-array ablation catheter, Medtronic Inc. and High Density Mesh ablator, Bard Electrophysiology, Lowell, MA, USA).48

Radiofrequency Ablation Devices

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Procedure Time

Ablation with a smaller number of simultaneously activated electrodes to reduce thrombo-embolic risk has significantly prolonged procedure times (159±39 versus 121±15 minutes) with the first generation PVAC.49 For the PVAC-Gold catheter shorter procedure times (94–117 minutes) have been reported.45,47

Complications

Asymptomatic cerebral embolisms were significantly higher with PVAC (incidence 38–39 %) than with irrigated RFCA and cryoballoon ablation.50–53 The potentially high embolic risk is supported by studies on micro-embolic signals recorded with transcranial Doppler ultrasonography.54–56 However, after technical modifications to eliminate electrode 1–10 interactions, the duration of micro-embolic signals was reduced with only 33 %.57,58 The clinical relevance of asymptomatic cerebral embolism detected on MRI and trans-cranial Doppler remains, however, unclear.59,60 Despite technical improvements, the second-generation PVAC-Gold catheter still showed a high incidence of asymptomatic cerebral embolism (20 % versus none, p=0.011) and a higher amount and duration of micro-embolic signals compared with irrigated RFCA in a randomised clinical trial from our centre.58 PNP is uncommon after PVAC ablation. It was first reported in 201061 and occurred in only 1/272 (0.4 %) consecutive patients.62 PVAC ablation is usually performed at the ostium of the PVs and a detectable narrowing of the PV diameter has been reported in 23 % of patients and 7 % of veins.14,63,64

Balloon-based Devices

Several balloon-based devices have been developed for PVI (Figure 2), including the cryoballoon, the hotballoon, the endoscopic laserballoon and the high-intensity focused ultrasound balloon. The latter is no longer available (for safety reasons) and will not be discussed in this review. A potential limitation of these devices is the more distal PVI compared with point-by-point isolation.65 However, over the last decade, balloon-based devices have undergone important technical improvements.

Cryoballoon

Historical Overview

First animal studies with cryoballoon ablation were published in 2005.66,67 A double-lumen balloon is cooled by expansion of NO2.66 The second-generation cryoballoon (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) has an increased gas flow, improved temperature uniformity and a more proximal cooling of the balloon with more internal injection ports compared with the first-generation.68 The broader cooling zone, together with easier positioning of the balloon with the second-generation steerable sheath (Flexcath Advance) and real-time assessment of PV isolation with the intraluminal spiral catheter (Achieve) has resulted in enhanced lesion durability and more antral ablation.69,70 Recent studies reported success rates (off AAD) of 76–86 % after 1–2 years for the first and second generation cryoballoon (Table 2).71–78 Freedom of AF off drugs was reported in 48–74 % of patients for the first-generation cryoballoon and in 65–83 % for the second-generation cryoballoon at 1-year follow-up. In a retrospective study comparing the two balloons, no significant differences in outcome were observed (78 versus 83 % at 1-year follow-up).79 The third-generation cryoballoon with a shorter tip to facilitate better PV-signal recordings is still being developed.

Procedure Time

With the development of the second-generation cryoballoon, the ablation protocol has been adapted with reduced cryo-application times (180 seconds instead of two-times 300 seconds).79,80 Recent studies evaluating shorter application times based on the time-to-isolation showed a similar efficacy at 1-year follow-up.72–77, 81

Complications

The reported incidence of complications is low and not significantly different between the first and second-generation cryoballoons.79,82–96 Specifically, the reduction in ablation time was not associated with lower complication rates (Table 2). Cardiac tamponade occurred in 0.7 % (47 of 6672 procedures) and was similar for first and second-generation balloons (Table 2). The incidence of phrenic and vagal nerve damage is, however, of concern. In a series of 66 patients, asymptomatic gastroparesis was reported in 9 %, transient PNP in 8 % and symptomatic inappropriate sinus tachycardia in 1 %.97 The reported incidence of PNP ranged between 2 and 28 % for the first-generation and between 1 and 16 % for the second-generation cryoballoon (Table 2). An association between cryoballoon use and any oesophageal injury has been reported in up to 17 %.98,99 However, atrial-oesophageal fistulae are rare and have only been case-reported.100–102 Stroke and transient ischaemic attacks are reported in 0.3–0.5 % of patients (Table 2). Of importance, the risk for PVS is also low. In a recent study, 0.4 % of the patients showed only mild (25–50 %) PVS.103

Hotballoon

Historical Overview

The hotballoon (HotBalloon catheter, Sataka, Toray Industries, Tokyo, Japan) is a compliant RF-based balloon (25–35 mm) that is filled with saline and contrast. The balloon can be heated to a temperature of 65–75°C through a coil electrode inside the balloon. Energy delivery is based on thermal conduction to the tissue in contact with the balloon surface. The first human study has shown that 2–3 applications of 2–3 minutes duration were required to achieve PVI resulting in AF free survival of 92 % off AAD during a mean follow-up of 11±5 months.104 In consecutive studies, reported outcome off AAD was 78, 59 and 65 % after 1, 6.3 and 3.6 years, respectively.105–107 Randomised studies comparing the hotballoon with other ablation technologies are lacking.

Complications

In an early animal study published in 2001, no major complications were reported.108 In a human feasibility study, oesophageal injury, however, occurred in three of the first six cases. After introduction of oesophageal cooling with saline, consisting of repeated injections of 10–20 ml mixture of contrast medium and saline, cooled at 10°C during applications, only one additional injury was observed in the next 58 patients.109 In a series of 502 patients, the incidence of oesophageal injury could be further reduced by adapting the oesophageal temperature cut-off (39°C instead of 41°C).107 Additional procedural-related complications included PNP and PVS. In a series of 319 ablations performed in 238 patients, 16 major complications occurred: >70 % PV stenosis in 4 (1.7 %), temporary PNP in 8 (3.4 %) and oesophageal injury in 4 (1.7 %).105 In a randomised controlled trial comparing hotballoon with AADs, for paroxysmal AF major complications were reported in 15 (11 %) patients: PV stenosis of >70 % in 5 % and transient PNP in 3.7 %.106 The hotballoon is still under investigation and optimal ablation energy and duration needs to be determined.

Laserballoon

Historical Overview

The first-generation laserballoon (Endoscopic ablation system, Cardiofocus Inc. Marlborough, MA, USA) was available in three diameters (20, 25 and 30 mm). It consists of a delivery sheath with an endoscope and arc generator inside a balloon. With the endoscope, the intra-cardiac anatomy and adequate tissue contact can be visualised real-time. The arc generator delivers laser energy to perform PVI.110 Similar to other balloon-based devices, superior caval vein pacing and oesophageal temperature monitoring (39°C cut off) is recommended to minimise the risk for PNP and oesophageal injury. After ablation, PV isolation needs to be evaluated with a separate spiral catheter. In the next-generation balloon (HeartLight, Cardiofocus, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA), the arc of the laser was decreased from 90–150° to 30° to improve safety. In addition, the balloon material was modified allowing variable sizing and deformation to prevent mismatch between the balloon size and the PV diameter.111 Based on data from nine studies including 1021 patients, the efficacy of the HeartLight balloon procedure ranged between 58 and 88 % at 1–1.5 year follow-up (off AAD).112 A more compliant laserballoon is currently being developed (HeartLight Excalibur Balloon™, Cardiofocus Inc.).

Different Balloon-based Ablation Devices

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Procedure Time

The first-generation laserballoon was initially constructed as a two-operator device for positioning the balloon and directing the laser ablation.113 The second-generation laserballoon can be used by a single-operator. In addition, energy delivery has been modified leading to a shorter procedural duration from 334 minutes during first use110 to 133–236 minutes in the improved laserballoon.112,114

Complications

A paper providing pooled data of eight small studies (total 308 patients) reported PNP in 2.3 % and cardiac tamponade in 1.9 % of the patients.113 In a multicentre study including 200 patients with paroxysmal AF, similar complication rates were observed (2 % cardiac tamponade and 2.5 % PNP.115 However, in a recent multicentre prospective study 1 patient out of 68 showed PNP and 1 patient developed a stroke (both 1.5 %).114 Of concern, the incidence of asymptomatic cerebral embolism with the laserballoon was 24 %, but not significantly higher (p=0.8) than for the cryoballoon (18 %) and irrigated RFCA (24 %) in a randomised study.116 In a clinical trial comparing laserballoon with irrigated RFCA (178 versus 175 patients), the incidence of all adverse events was also similar (12 % versus 15 %).111 However, the incidence of PNP was significantly higher with the laserballoon (3.5 % versus 0.6 %). PNP was also the major complication in another study with an incidence of 5.8 %. Cardiac tamponade was reported in 3.5 % of patients.117 In these studies PVS was not reported.

Overview of Literature on Ablation with the Cryoballoon

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Overview of Literature on Ablation with the Cryoballoon

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Comparison of Ablation Devices

Ablation Technology and Efficacy

Outcome after cryoballoon ablation versus point-by point RFCA has been well studied, also in randomised trials: a recent meta-analysis of 10 studies (total of 6473 patients; 3 randomised trials) showed similar efficacy.118 Data comparing other single-shot techniques with RFCA are limited. Smaller studies suggest no significant differences in efficacy. A randomised multicentre clinical trial comparing the laserballoon with RFCA (178 versus 175 patients) reported a 61 versus 62 % AF free survival at 1 year off AAD.111 Also in another multicentre prospective trial comparing the laserballoon (n=68) with RFCA (n=66) there was no difference in outcome (71 versus 69 %, p=0.40) at 1-year follow-up (off AAD).114 In a study comparing the laserballoon with the cryoballoon (n=140) the efficacy at 1 year off AAD was comparable between the two techniques (73. versus 63 %).119

Ablation Technology and Procedural Time

The reported procedure times for cryoballoon ablation are significantly shorter compared with point-by-point RFCA (Tables 1 and 2).118 Similarly, procedural times using multi-electrode ablation catheters (PVAC) are shorter if compared with point-by-point RFCA, while the efficacy was similar.120,121 Although in an early study longer procedural times were reported for laserballoon ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation and point-by-point RFCA,116 a recent study demonstrated similar procedural duration (laserballoon 144 minutes, cryoballoon 136 minutes).119 This was also applicable when comparing laserballoon with RFCA (128 versus 135 minutes).114

Pericardial Effusion/Cardiac Tamponade

Radiofrequency ablation compared with balloon-based devices is associated with an increased risk for cardiac tamponade (1.5 versus 0.1 %).122 This risk was higher in PVI plus additional lesion sets compared with PVI only (0.8 versus 0.1 %, p=0.024).122 For CF catheters, the reported incidences are higher (2.5–8 %).123–125 Based on published data (Tables 1 and 2), the estimated incidence of pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade is approximately 1.9 % (144 of 9793; range 1–12 %) for point-by-point RFCA and 0.7 % (47 of 6772; range 0–8 %) for the cryoballoon.

Stroke/TIA

Cryoballoon ablation has been associated with a lower risk for thrombus formation compared with RFCA.126 In line with this data is the observed lower incidence of silent cerebral embolism compared with irrigated RFCA and PVAC.51,52,127 However, in a randomised study comparing laserballoon (n=33), cryoballoon (n=33) and irrigated RFCA (n=33), the incidence of asymptomatic cerebral lesions was not significantly different (24 %, 18 % and 24 %, respectively).116 For PVAC, a higher rate of micro-embolic signals and asymptomatic cerebral embolism has been observed compared with cryoballoon or RFCA.51,53,56 However, the incidence of symptomatic cerebral events (stroke/TIA) is similar (0.3 versus 0.2 %).

Phrenic Nerve Palsy and Oesophageal/Vagal Nerve Injury

The incidence of PNP is significantly higher with the cryoballoon compared with RF, occurring in 3.9 % of the ablations (264 of 6772 cases; range 0–15 %), with permanent paralysis in <1 % (Tables 1 and 2). Similarly, laserballoon ablations are complicated by PNP in 5.8 % of patients.111 In contrast, the reported risk for oesophageal injury is lower with cryoballoon compared with RFCA.128

Pulmonary Vein Stenosis

In a clinical trial comparing laserballoon versus RFCA, the incidence of PV stenosis was lower (0 versus 3 %).111 In a study comparing the laserballoon with RFCA and cryoballoon, only mild stenosis was seen in 18, 10 and 3.6 % of the PVs, respectively.129

Groin Complications and Bleeding

Based on the published data summarised in Tables 1 and 2, there were no significant differences in groin-related complications between cryoballoon ablation and RFCA: total reported cases for cryoballoon are 139 (1.8 %) versus 179 (1.8 %) for RFCA.

Patient Characteristics Related to Complications

The majority of patients included in ablation studies are male.130 Bleeding complications (groin-related) after catheter ablation were reported in 2.1 % of female patients (total 3265 patients, n=518 females) undergoing AF ablation. These numbers exceed those reported in males (n=27; 0.9 %).130 Both female gender and higher age have been associated with major adverse events.29 In a large nationwide survey, significant predictors for complications were female gender, high burden of comorbidity and low ablation volume of the hospital (<50 procedures/per year).131 In addition, patients with diabetes are at risk specifically for thrombotic or haemorrhagic complications.132

Prevention of Complications

Knowledge of all potential complications is important for prevention. Technical advances may help to improve safety. Three-dimensional electro-anatomical mapping and image integration can minimise radiation exposure. Careful procedural planning, close cooperation of different medical specialities (e.g. in hybrid AF treatment) and patient monitoring can further reduce complications.133

Pericardial Effusion/Tamponade

For prevention of cardiac tamponade, limiting of radiofrequency power to 30–40 watts in the anterior wall and 20–30 watts in the posterior wall has been applied in most studies (Table 1a/Table 1b). Previous studies demonstrated that power limitation from 45–60 to ≤42 watts in linear lesions during AF ablation limited the incidence of cardiac tamponade.134 With the introduction of force-sensing catheters, RF power adjustment according to CF parameters became possible. However optimal values remain to be established.135

Stroke/TIA

Trans-oesophageal echocardiography, computed tomography or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may be used to exclude the presence of a left atrial thrombus.4 Symptomatic cerebral thromboembolic events are relatively rare (0.8 %).136 Independent risk factors are a CHADS2 score ≥2 and a history of stroke.137 Accurate sheath management can reduce the risk of air embolism (incidence <1 %). Continued oral anticoagulation (INR ≥ 2) during the procedure and maintenance of an adequate ACT (>300) should be considered to impact catheter thrombogenicity and the risk for (asymptomatic) cerebral embolism.138 A meta-analysis of 13 studies comparing non-vitamin K antagonists (NOAC) with vitamin-k antagonists (including 3 randomised controlled trials) could demonstrate that NOACs are safe and effective, but adequately-powered randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these results.139

Phrenic Nerve Palsy

Superior caval vein phrenic nerve pacing with palpation ofdiaphragmatic excursions may allow discontinuation of ablation before permanent injury.140 Diaphragmatic compound motor action potential (CMAP) monitoring is a relatively new technique to prevent PNP.141 To measure the CMAP signal, the left and right arm electrocardiogram leads are placed, respectively, 5 cm above the xiphoid and 16 cm along the right costal margin. Peak-to-peak measurement is performed of the CMAP signal with each phrenic nerve capture during superior vena cava pacing with a decapolar catheter. CMAP signals were amplified using a bandpass filter between 0.5 and 100 kHz and recorded on a recording system (Prucka, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). The technique is well described with figures by Lakhani et al.142 The ablation is terminated after reaching a 30 % reduction in CMAP, which resulted in a faster recovery of phrenic nerve injury compared with manual palpation.143 Abortion of the freeze cycle during cryoballoon ablation (“double stop” technique: immediate ablation termination with direct balloon deflation) is an important additional manoeuvre to prevent permanent nerve injury.143,144 Measuring of CMAP has reduced PNP incidence to 1 % compared to 4–11 % with manual palpation.145

Oesophageal/Vagal Nerve Injury

Reduction of radiofrequency power to 20–25 watts aims to prevent oesophageal injury, atrial-oesophageal fistulae and vagal nerve injury causing gastric hypo-motility.146 Oesophagus and/or vagal nerve damage can be prevented by monitoring of the oesophageal temperature during ablation,147–149 with a reduction from 36 % to 6 % in RFCA150 and from 18.8 % to 3.2 % in cryoballoon ablation.148 Temperature cut-offs that may be considered safe are >38.5°C for RFCA and <15°C for cryoballoon procedures.148,150 However, the use of temperature monitoring during RFCA is still under debate. Employment of temperature probes during RFCA has been associated with a higher incidence of oesophageal injury (30 versus 2.5 %; p<0.01) and using the temperature probe has been identified as an independent predictor.151 It has been hypothesised that the probe may act as an antenna drawing RF energy to the oesophagus.152 Other methods for prevention of oesophageal damage are active cooling with saline,153 changing the oesophagus position with a deviation tool and visualisation of the posterior wall and oesophagus with image-integration and electro-anatomical mapping.154–157 Whether prescription of prophylactic proton-pump inhibitors can prevent oesophageal damage needs further investigation.

Pulmonary Vein Stenosis

Pulmonary vein stenosis is likely an underdiagnosed complication after AF ablation which may be due to the lack of specific symptoms.158 The most important step to reduce the risk of PV stenosis is to avoid ablation inside the PVs by careful determination of the PV ostia before ablation.

Groin Complications and Bleeding

Management of coagulation is important to prevent vascular complications. In addition, a three-point strategy tested in 324 patients with continued warfarin during ablation, a smaller needle for access (18G instead of 21G) and avoiding arterial access has resulted in a reduction in vascular access complications (3.7 % versus 0 %; p=0.03), while the rates of thromboembolic complications and cardiac tamponade were similar.159 Ultrasound-guided versus conventional femoral puncture did not reduce major complication rate (0.6 versus 1.9 %; p=0.62) in 320 patients, however it was associated with significantly lower puncture time, higher rate of first pass success and less extra or arterial punctures.160

Conclusion

Several ablation devices have been developed over the last 15 years to increase procedural efficacy. Improvement of safety profiles is often initiated after the occurrence of complications. Knowledge of potential and device-specific complications and awareness of currently considered asymptomatic procedure related events (e.g. cerebral emboli) is important for patient counselling and selection – primum non nocere.

Clinical Perspective

  • Cardiac tamponade remains an important complication and is more frequently observed in irrigated contact-force guided radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) compared with balloon-based techniques.
  • Compared with single-shot techniques, the procedural duration of point-by-point RFCA is longer, while fluoroscopy duration is usually shorter due to three-dimensional navigation. High-power short-duration ablation methods are in development to reduce procedural duration with limited data on the safety profile.
  • Procedural duration for multi-electrode catheters is short. A potential drawback is the association with asymptomatic cerebral embolism, the clinical significance of which is not clarified yet.
  • Improvement of cryoballoon technology has led to shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times with similar efficacy and complication rates. Outcome and complications compared with RFCA are similar, except for a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsy. Other balloon-based devices are in development with unknown safety profiles.
  • Pre-procedural patient evaluation, appropriate device selection, optimisation of energy delivery and intraprocedural monitoring is important to balance efficacy and safety.
References
  1. Calkins H, Reynolds MR, Spector P, et al. Treatment of atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs or radiofrequency ablation: two systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009;2:349–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Hakalahti A, Biancari F, Nielsen JC, Raatikainen MJ. Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace 2015;17:370–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Raatikainen MJ, Hakalahti A, Uusimaa P, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation maintains its efficacy better than antiarrhythmic medication in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: On-treatment analysis of the randomized controlled MANTRA-PAF trial. Int J Cardiol 2015;198:108–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. J Interv Cardiac Electrophysiol 2012;33:171–257.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen SA, et al. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2010;3:32–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Raviele A, Natale A, Calkins H, et al. Venice Chart international consensus document on atrial fibrillation ablation: 2011 update. J Card Electrophysiol 2012;23:890–923.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Chen J, Dagres N, Hocini M, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: results from the first European Snapshot Survey on Procedural Routines for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation (ESS-PRAFA) Part II. Europace 2015;17:1727–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Executive summary. J Arrhythm 2017;33:369–409.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Pearman CM, Poon SS, Bonnett LJ, et al. Minimally invasive epicardial surgical ablation alone versus hybrid ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2017;6:202–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Ho SY, Sanchez-Quintana D, Cabrera JA, Anderson RH. Anatomy of the left atrium: implications for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Card Electrophysiol 1999;10:1525–33.
    PubMed
  11. Weiss C, Gocht A, Willems S, et al. Impact of the distribution and structure of myocardium in the pulmonary veins for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation. PACE 2002;25:1352–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Jais P, Haissaguerre M, Shah DC, et al. A focal source of atrial fibrillation treated by discrete radiofrequency ablation. Circulation 1997;95:572–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Haissaguerre M, Jais P, Shah DC, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Quiniou G, et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. New Engl J Med 1998;339:659–66.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Arentz T, Jander N, von Rosenthal J, Blum T, Furmaier R, Gornandt L, et al. Incidence of pulmonary vein stenosis 2 years after radiofrequency catheter ablation of refractory atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2003;24:963–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Marrouche NF, Martin DO, Wazni O, et al. Phased-array intracardiac echocardiography monitoring during pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation: impact on outcome and complications. Circulation 2003;107:2710–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Oral H, Knight BP, Ozaydin M, et al. Segmental ostial ablation to isolate the pulmonary veins during atrial fibrillation: feasibility and mechanistic insights. Circulation 2002;106:1256–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Pappone C, Rosanio S, Oreto G, et al. Circumferential radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary vein ostia: A new anatomic approach for curing atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2000;102:2619–28.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Wittkampf FH, Nakagawa H. RF catheter ablation: Lessons on lesions. PACE 2006;29:1285–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Yokoyama K, Nakagawa H, Wittkampf FH, et al. Comparison of electrode cooling between internal and open irrigation in radiofrequency ablation lesion depth and incidence of thrombus and steam pop. Circulation 2006;113:11–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Chang SL, Tai CT, Lin YJ, et al. Comparison of cooled-tip versus 4-mm-tip catheter in the efficacy of acute ablative tissue injury during circumferential pulmonary vein isolation. J Card Electrophysiol 2009;20:1113–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Martinek M, Nesser HJ, Aichinger J, et al. Impact of integration of multislice computed tomography imaging into three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping on clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy using radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation. PACE 2007;30:1215–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Bertaglia E, Bella PD, Tondo C, et al. Image integration increases efficacy of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: results from the CartoMerge Italian Registry. Europace 2009;11:1004–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Della Bella P, Fassini G, Cireddu M, et al. Image integration-guided catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a prospective randomized study. J Card Electrophysiol 2009;20:258–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Caponi D, Corleto A, Scaglione M, et al. Ablation of atrial fibrillation: does the addition of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging of the left atrium to electroanatomic mapping improve the clinical outcome?: A randomized comparison of Carto-Merge vs. Carto-XP three-dimensional mapping ablation in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2010;12:1098–104.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Hunter RJ, Ginks M, Ang R, et al. Impact of variant pulmonary vein anatomy and image integration on long-term outcome after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Europace 2010;12:1691–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Rordorf R, Sanzo A, Gionti V. Contact force technology integrated with 3D navigation system for atrial fibrillation ablation: improving results? Expert Rev Med Devices 2017;14:461–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Ullah W, McLean A, Tayebjee MH, et al. Randomized trial comparing pulmonary vein isolation using the SmartTouch catheter with or without real-time contact force data. Heart Rhythm 2016;13:1761–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Lin H, Chen YH, Hou JW, et al. Role of contact force-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Electrophysiol 2017;28:994–1005.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Spragg DD, Dalal D, Cheema A, et al. Complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: incidence and predictors. J Card Electrophysiol 2008;19:627–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Engel G, Patrawala RA. Atrial fibrillation ablation: “perpetual motion” of open irrigated tip catheters at 50 W is safe and improves outcomes. PACE 2011;34:531–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Winkle RA, Moskovitz R, Hardwin Mead R, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation using very short duration 50 W ablations and contact force sensing catheters. J Interv Cardiac Electrophysiol 2018;52:1–8.
  32. Bhaskaran A, Chik W, Pouliopoulos J, Nalliah C, et al. Five seconds of 50–60 W radio frequency atrial ablations were transmural and safe: an in vitro mechanistic assessment and force-controlled in vivo validation. Europace 2017;19:874–80.
  33. Haegeli LM, Stutz L, Mohsen M, et al. Feasibility of zero or near zero fluoroscopy during catheter ablation procedures. Card J 2018; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Gaita F, Guerra PG, Battaglia A, Anselmino M. The dream of near-zero X-rays ablation comes true. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2749–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Hwang ES, Pak HN, Park SW, et al. Risks and benefits of an open irrigation tip catheter in intensive radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circ J 2010;74:644–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Stavrakis S, Po S. Ganglionated plexi ablation: physiology and clinical applications. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2017;6:186–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Sauren LD, Van Belle, Y, De Roy, L, et al. Transcranial measurement of cerebral microembolic signals during endocardial pulmonary vein isolation: comparison of three different ablation techniques. J Card Electrophysiol 2009;20:1102–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Bertaglia E, Fassini G, Anselmino M, et al. Comparison of ThermoCool(R) Surround Flow catheter versus ThermoCool(R) catheter in achieving persistent electrical isolation of pulmonary veins: a pilot study. J Card Electrophysiol 2013;24:269–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Knopp H, Halm U, Lamberts R, et al. Incidental and ablation-induced findings during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients after ablation of atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study of 425 patients. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:574–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Black-Maier E, Pokorney SD, Barnett AS, et al. Risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation with contact force-sensing catheters. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:1328–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the safety and effectiveness of a contact force-sensing irrigated catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Results of the TactiCath Contact Force Ablation Catheter Study for Atrial Fibrillation (TOCCASTAR). Circulation 2015;132:907–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Beukema RP, Beukema WP, Smit JJ, et al. Efficacy of multi-electrode duty-cycled radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein disconnection in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2010;12:502–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Wieczorek M, Lukat M, Hoeltgen R, et al. Investigation into causes of abnormal cerebral MRI findings following PVAC duty-cycled, phased RF ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Card Electrophysiol 2013;24:121–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Gal P, Buist TJ, Smit JJ, et al. Effective contact and outcome after pulmonary vein isolation in novel circular multi-electrode atrial fibrillation ablation. Neth Heart J 2017;25:16–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Weber S, Hoher M, Schultes D. First results and follow-up of a second-generation circular mapping and ablation catheter. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2016;47:213–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Spitzer SG, Leitz P, Langbein A, et al. Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation with second-generation multipolar catheter in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation: Procedural and one-year follow-up results. Int J Cardiol 2017;241:212–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Rovaris G, De Filippo P, Laurenzi F, et al. Clinical outcomes of AF patients treated with the first and second-generation of circular mapping and ablation catheter: insights from a real world multicenter experience. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2017;50:245–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Vurma M, Dang L, Brunner-La Rocca HP, et al. Safety and efficacy of the nMARQ catheter for paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2016;18:1164–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Wieczorek M, Hoeltgen R, Brueck M. Does the number of simultaneously activated electrodes during phased RF multielectrode ablation of atrial fibrillation influence the incidence of silent cerebral microembolism? Heart Rhythm 2013;10:953–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Andrade JG, Dubuc M, Rivard L, et al. Efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation with phased radiofrequency energy and multielectrode catheters. Heart Rhythm 2012;9:289–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Gaita F, Leclercq JF, Schumacher B, et al. Incidence of silent cerebral thromboembolic lesions after atrial fibrillation ablation may change according to technology used: comparison of irrigated radiofrequency, multipolar nonirrigated catheter and cryoballoon. J Card Electrophysiol 2011;22:961–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Herrera Siklody C, Deneke T, Hocini M, et al. Incidence of asymptomatic intracranial embolic events after pulmonary vein isolation: comparison of different atrial fibrillation ablation technologies in a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:681–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Guijian L, Wenqing Z, Xinggang W, et al. Association between ablation technology and asymptomatic cerebral injury following atrial fibrillation ablation. PACE 2014;37:1378–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Haines DE, Stewart MT, Dahlberg S, et al. Microembolism and catheter ablation I: a comparison of irrigated radiofrequency and multielectrode-phased radiofrequency catheter ablation of pulmonary vein ostia. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2013;6:16–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Kiss A, Nagy-Balo E, Sandorfi G, et al. Cerebral microembolization during atrial fibrillation ablation: comparison of different single-shot ablation techniques. Int J Cardiol 2014;174:276–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. von Bary C, Deneke T, Arentz T, et al. Online measurement of microembolic signal burden by transcranial doppler during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation – results of a multicenter trial. Front Neurol 2017;8:131.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Compier MG, Bruggemans EF, Van Buchem MA, et al. Silent cerebral embolism after PVAC and irrigated-tip ablation for atrial fibrillation: incidence and clinical implications. Results from the CE-AF trial pilot (Abstract). Eur Heart J 2012;33:32.
  58. Kece F, Bruggemans EF, De Riva M, et al. P807 Asymptomatic cerebral embolism in ablation with the second generation PVAC Gold. Eur Heart J 2017;38(suppl_1):ehx501.P807-ehx501.P807.
  59. Deneke T, Jais P, Scaglione M, et al. Silent cerebral events/lesions related to atrial fibrillation ablation: a clinical review. J Card Electrophysiol 2015;26:455–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. von Bary C, Deneke T, Arentz T, et al. Clinical impact of the microembolic signal burden during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: just a lot of noise? J Ultrasound Med 37:1091–1101.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Ahsan SY, Flett AS, Lambiase PD, Segal OR. First report of phrenic nerve injury during pulmonary vein isolation using the Ablation Frontiers pulmonary vein ablation catheter. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2010;29:187–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. De Greef Y, Stroker E, Schwagten B, et al. Complications of pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation: predictors and comparison between four different ablation techniques: Results from the MIddelheim PVI-registry. Europace 2017; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Arentz T, Weber R, Jander N, et al. Pulmonary haemodynamics at rest and during exercise in patients with significant pulmonary vein stenosis after radiofrequency catheter ablation for drug resistant atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1410–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. von Bary C, Weber S, Dornia C, et al. Evaluation of pulmonary vein stenosis after pulmonary vein isolation using a novel circular mapping and ablation catheter (PVAC). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2011;4:630–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Reddy VY, Neuzil P, d’Avila A, et al. Balloon catheter ablation to treat paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: what is the level of pulmonary venous isolation? Heart Rhythm 2008;5:353–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Sarabanda AV, Bunch TJ, Johnson SB, et al. Efficacy and safety of circumferential pulmonary vein isolation using a novel cryothermal balloon ablation system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46(10):1902–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Garan A, Al-Ahmad A, Mihalik T, et al. Cryoablation of the pulmonary veins using a novel balloon catheter. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2006;15:79–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Knecht S, Kuhne M, Osswald S, Sticherling C. Quantitative assessment of a second-generation cryoballoon ablation catheter with new cooling technology – a perspective on potential implications on outcome. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2014;40:17–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Kenigsberg DN, Martin N, Lim HW, et al. Quantification of the cryoablation zone demarcated by pre- and postprocedural electroanatomic mapping in patients with atrial fibrillation using the 28-mm second-generation cryoballoon. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:283–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Miyazaki S, Taniguchi H, Hachiya H, et al. Quantitative analysis of the isolation area during the chronic phase after a 28-mm second-generation cryoballoon ablation demarcated by high-resolution electroanatomic mapping. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2016;9:e003879.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Wei HQ, Guo XG, Zhou GB, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation with real-time pulmonary vein potential recording using second-generation cryoballoon: Procedural and biophysical predictors of acute pulmonary vein reconnection. PACE 2018;41:14–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Wissner E, Heeger CH, Grahn H, et al. One-year clinical success of a ‘no-bonus’ freeze protocol using the second-generation 28 mm cryoballoon for pulmonary vein isolation. Europace 2015;17:1236–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Tebbenjohanns J, Hofer C, Bergmann L, et al. Shortening of freezing cycles provides equal outcome to standard ablation procedure using second-generation 28 mm cryoballoon after 15-month follow-up. Europace 2016;18:206–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Ciconte G, Sieira-Moret J, Hacioglu E, et al. Single 3-minute versus double 4-minute freeze strategy for second-generation cryoballoon ablation: a single-center experience. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016;27:796–803.
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Straube F, Dorwarth U, Hartl S, et al. Outcome of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation with the cryoballoon using two different application times: the 4- versus 3-min protocol. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2016;45:169–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. De Regibus V, Abugattas JP, Iacopino S, et al. Single freeze per vein strategy with the second-generation cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched study between 180- and 240-s application time in a large cohort of patients. Europace 2017; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Rottner L, Fink T, Heeger CH, et al. Is less more? Impact of different ablation protocols on periprocedural complications in second-generation cryoballoon based pulmonary vein isolation. Europace 2017; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. Ferrero-de-Loma-Osorio A, Garcia-Fernandez A, Castillo-Castillo J, et al. Time-to-effect-based dosing strategy for cryoballoon ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the plusONE multicenter randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017;10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Aryana A, Morkoch S, Bailey S, et al. Acute procedural and cryoballoon characteristics from cryoablation of atrial fibrillation using the first- and second-generation cryoballoon: a retrospective comparative study with follow-up outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2014;41:177–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  80. Aryana A, Kowalski M, O’Neill PG, et al. Catheter ablation using the third-generation cryoballoon provides an enhanced ability to assess time to pulmonary vein isolation facilitating the ablation strategy: Short- and long-term results of a multicenter study. Heart Rhythm 2016;13:2306–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  81. Stroker E, Kupics K, de Asmundis C, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation with the second generation cryoballoon: Multicenter propensity score matched comparison between freezing strategies. Int J Cardiol 2018;253:78–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  82. Aryana A, Singh SM, Kowalski M, et al. Acute and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated radiofrequency: a multicenter experience. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015;26:832–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  83. Aytemir K, Oto A, Canpolat U, et al. Immediate and medium-term outcomes of cryoballoon-based pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: single-centre experience. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2013;38:187–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  84. Ciconte G, de Asmundis C, Sieira J, et al. Single 3-minute freeze for second-generation cryoballoon ablation: one-year follow-up after pulmonary vein isolation. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:673–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  85. Defaye P, Kane A, Chaib A, Jacon P. Efficacy and safety of pulmonary veins isolation by cryoablation for the treatment of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2011;13:789–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  86. Khoueiry Z, Albenque JP, Providencia R, et al. Outcomes after cryoablation vs. radiofrequency in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: impact of pulmonary veins anatomy. Europace 2016;18:1343–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  87. Kuck KH, Brugada J, Furnkranz A, et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. New Engl J Med 2016;374:2235–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  88. Mugnai G, Chierchia GB, de Asmundis C, et al. Comparison of pulmonary vein isolation using cryoballoon versus conventional radiofrequency for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:1509–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  89. Neumann T, Vogt J, Schumacher B, et al. Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation with the cryoballoon technique results from a prospective 3-center study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:273–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  90. Schmidt M, Dorwarth U, Andresen D, et al. Cryoballoon versus RF ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from the German Ablation Registry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014;25:1–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  91. Squara F, Zhao A, Marijon E, et al. Comparison between radiofrequency with contact force-sensing and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a multicentre European evaluation. Europace 2015;17:718–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  92. Straube F, Dorwarth U, Ammar-Busch S, et al. First-line catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: outcome of radiofrequency vs. cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. Europace 2016;18:368–75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  93. Straube F, Dorwarth U, Schmidt M, et al. Comparison of the first and second cryoballoon: high-volume single-center safety and efficacy analysis. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014;7:293–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  94. Van Belle Y, Janse P, Theuns D, et al. One year follow-up after cryoballoon isolation of the pulmonary veins in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace 2008;10:1271–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  95. Vogt J, Heintze J, Gutleben KJ, et al. Long-term outcomes after cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation: results from a prospective study in 605 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1707–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  96. Wasserlauf J, Pelchovitz DJ, Rhyner J, et al. Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. PACE 2015;38:483–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  97. Guiot A, Savoure A, Godin B, Anselme F. Collateral nervous damages after cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:346–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  98. Ahmed H, Neuzil P, d’Avila A, et al. The esophageal effects of cryoenergy during cryoablation for atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm 2009;6:962–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  99. D’Avila A, Dukkipati S. Esophageal damage during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: is cryo safer than RF? PACE 2009;32:709–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  100. John RM, Kapur S, Ellenbogen KA, Koneru JN. Atrioesophageal fistula formation with cryoballoon ablation is most commonly related to the left inferior pulmonary vein. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:184–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  101. Lim HW, Cogert GA, Cameron CS, et al. Atrioesophageal fistula during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014;25:208–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  102. Stockigt F, Schrickel JW, Andrie R, Lickfett L. Atrioesophageal fistula after cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:1254–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  103. Coutino HE, Takarada K, Sieira J, et al. Anatomical and procedural predictors of pulmonary vein stenosis in the setting of second-generation cryoballoon ablation. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018;19:290–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  104. Satake S, Tanaka K, Saito S, et al. Usefulness of a new radiofrequency thermal balloon catheter for pulmonary vein isolation: a new device for treatment of atrial fibrillation. J Card Electrophysiol 2003;14:609–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  105. Yamaguchi Y, Sohara H, Takeda H, et al. Long-term results of radiofrequency hot balloon ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: safety and rhythm outcomes. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015;26:1298–306.
    Crossref | PubMed
  106. Sohara H, Ohe T, Okumura K, et al. Hotballoon ablation of the pulmonary veins for paroxysmal AF: a multicenter randomized trial in Japan. J Am College Cardiol 2016;68:2747–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  107. Sohara H, Satake S, Takeda H, et al. Prevalence of esophageal ulceration after atrial fibrillation ablation with the hot balloon ablation catheter: what is the value of esophageal cooling? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014;25:686–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  108. Tanaka K, Satake S, Saito S, et al. A new radiofrequency thermal balloon catheter for pulmonary vein isolation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:2079–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  109. Sohara H, Takeda H, Ueno H, et al. Feasibility of the radiofrequency hot balloon catheter for isolation of the posterior left atrium and pulmonary veins for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009;2:225–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  110. Reddy VY, Neuzil P, Themistoclakis S, et al. Visually-guided balloon catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: experimental feasibility and first-in-human multicenter clinical outcome. Circulation 2009;120:12–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  111. Dukkipati SR, Cuoco F, Kutinsky I, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation using the visually guided laser balloon: a prospective, multicenter, and randomized comparison to standard radiofrequency ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1350–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  112. Bhardwaj R, Reddy VY. Visually-guided laser balloon ablation of atrial fibrillation: a “real world” experience. Revista espanola de cardiologia (English ed) 2016;69:474–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  113. Bordignon S, Chun KR, Gunawardene M, et al. Endoscopic ablation systems. Expert Rev Med Devices 2013;10:177–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  114. Schmidt B, Neuzil P, Luik A, et al. Laser balloon or wide-area circumferential irrigated radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicenter prospective randomized study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017;10:pii:
    Crossref | PubMed
  115. Dukkipati SR, Kuck KH, Neuzil P, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation using a visually guided laser balloon catheter: the first 200-patient multicenter clinical experience. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2013;6(3):467–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  116. Schmidt B, Gunawardene M, Krieg D, et al. A prospective randomized single-center study on the risk of asymptomatic cerebral lesions comparing irrigated radiofrequency current ablation with the cryoballoon and the laser balloon. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2013;24:869–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  117. Dukkipati SR, Woollett I, McElderry HT, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation using the visually guided laser balloon: results of the US feasibility study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015.
    Crossref | PubMed
  118. Buiatti A, von Olshausen G, Barthel P, et al. Cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Europace 2017;19:378–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  119. Bordignon S, Chun KR, Gunawardene M, et al. Comparison of balloon catheter ablation technologies for pulmonary vein isolation: the laser versus cryo study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2013;24:987–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  120. Bulava A, Hanis J, Sitek D, et al. Catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized comparison between multielectrode catheter and point-by-point ablation. PACE 2010;33:1039–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  121. Bittner A, Monnig G, Zellerhoff S, et al. Randomized study comparing duty-cycled bipolar and unipolar radiofrequency with point-by-point ablation in pulmonary vein isolation. Heart Rhythm 2011;8:1383–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  122. Chun KRJ, Perrotta L, Bordignon S, et al. Complications in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in 3,000 consecutive procedures. balloon versus radiofrequency current ablation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2017;3:154–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  123. Kautzner J, Neuzil P, Lambert H, et al. EFFICAS II: optimization of catheter contact force improves outcome of pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1229–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  124. Natale A, Reddy VY, Monir G, et al. Paroxysmal AF catheter ablation with a contact force sensing catheter: results of the prospective, multicenter SMART-AF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:647–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  125. Kuck KH, Reddy VY, Schmidt B, et al. A novel radiofrequency ablation catheter using contact force sensing: Toccata study. Heart Rhythm 2012;9:18–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  126. Khairy P, Chauvet P, Lehmann J, et al. Lower incidence of thrombus formation with cryoenergy versus radiofrequency catheter ablation. Circulation 2003;107:2045–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  127. Neumann T, Kuniss M, Conradi G, et al. MEDAFI-Trial (Micro-embolization during ablation of atrial fibrillation): comparison of pulmonary vein isolation using cryoballoon technique vs. radiofrequency energy. Europace 2011;13:37–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  128. Ripley KL, Gage AA, Olsen DB, et al. Time course of esophageal lesions after catheter ablation with cryothermal and radiofrequency ablation: implication for atrio-esophageal fistula formation after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2007;18:642–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  129. Nagase T, Bordignon S, Perrotta L, et al. Low risk of pulmonary vein stenosis after contemporary atrial fibrillation ablation – lessons from repeat procedures after radiofrequency current, cryoballoon, and laser balloon. Circulation 2018;82:1558–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  130. Patel D, Mohanty P, Di Biase L, et al. Outcomes and complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in females. Heart Rhythm 2010;7:167–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  131. Tripathi B, Arora S, Kumar V, et al. Temporal trends of in-hospital complications associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States: An update from Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2011–2014). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2018;29:715–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  132. Tang RB, Dong JZ, Liu XP, et al. Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus – single center experience. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2006;17:41–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  133. Umbrain V, Verborgh C, Chierchia GB, et al. One-stage approach for hybrid atrial fibrillation treatment. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2017;6:210–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  134. Hsu LF, Jais P, Hocini M, et al. Incidence and prevention of cardiac tamponade complicating ablation for atrial fibrillation. PACE 2005;28 Suppl 1:S106-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  135. Ullah W, Schilling RJ, Wong T. Contact force and atrial fibrillation ablation. J Atr Fibrillation 2016;8:1282.
    Crossref | PubMed
  136. Patel D, Bailey SM, Furlan AJ, et al. Long-term functional and neurocognitive recovery in patients who had an acute cerebrovascular event secondary to catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2010;21:412–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  137. Scherr D, Sharma K, Dalal D, et al. Incidence and predictors of periprocedural cerebrovascular accident in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2009;20:1357–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  138. Di Biase L, Gaita F, Toso E, et al. Does periprocedural anticoagulation management of atrial fibrillation affect the prevalence of silent thromboembolic lesion detected by diffusion cerebral magnetic resonance imaging in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation with open irrigated catheters? Results from a prospective multicenter study. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:791–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  139. Elgendy AY, Mahtta D, Barakat AF, et al. Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of uninterrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 2017;120:1830–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  140. Bunch TJ, Bruce GK, Mahapatra S, et al. Mechanisms of phrenic nerve injury during radiofrequency ablation at the pulmonary vein orifice. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2005;16:1318–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  141. Kowalski M, Ellenbogen KA, Koneru JN. Prevention of phrenic nerve injury during interventional electrophysiologic procedures. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:1839–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  142. Lakhani M, Saiful F, Parikh V, et al. Recordings of diaphragmatic electromyograms during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation accurately predict phrenic nerve injury. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:369–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  143. Miyazaki S, Kajiyama T, Watanabe T, et al. Characteristics of phrenic nerve injury during pulmonary vein isolation using a 28-mm second-generation cryoballoon and short freeze strategy. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:pii: e008249.
    Crossref | PubMed
  144. Ghosh J, Sepahpour A, Chan KH, et al. Immediate balloon deflation for prevention of persistent phrenic nerve palsy during pulmonary vein isolation by balloon cryoablation. Heart Rhythm 2013;10:646–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  145. Parikh V, Kowalski M. Comparison of phrenic nerve injury during atrial fibrillation ablation between different modalities, pathophysiology and management. J Atr Fibrillation 2015;8:1314.
    Crossref | PubMed
  146. Saha SA, Trohman RG. Periesophageal vagal nerve injury following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A case report and review of the literature. HeartRhythm Case Rep 2015;1:252–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  147. Perzanowski C, Teplitsky L, Hranitzky PM, Bahnson TD. Real-time monitoring of luminal esophageal temperature during left atrial radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: observations about esophageal heating during ablation at the pulmonary vein ostia and posterior left atrium. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2006;17:166–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  148. Furnkranz A, Bordignon S, Bohmig M, et al. Reduced incidence of esophageal lesions by luminal esophageal temperature-guided second-generation cryoballoon ablation. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:268–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  149. Kuwahara T, Takahashi A, Takahashi Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and management of periesophageal vagal nerve injury complicating left atrial ablation of atrial fibrillation: lessons from eleven cases. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2013;24:847–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  150. Singh SM, d’Avila A, Doshi SK, et al. Esophageal injury and temperature monitoring during atrial fibrillation ablation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2008;1:162–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  151. Muller P, Dietrich JW, Halbfass P, et al. Higher incidence of esophageal lesions after ablation of atrial fibrillation related to the use of esophageal temperature probes. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:1464–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  152. Nguyen DT, Barham W, Zheng L, et al. Effect of radiofrequency energy delivery in proximity to metallic medical device components. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:2162–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  153. Tsuchiya T, Ashikaga K, Nakagawa S, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation with esophageal cooling with a cooled water-irrigated intraesophageal balloon: a pilot study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2007;18:145–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  154. Koruth JS, Reddy VY, Miller MA, et al. Mechanical esophageal displacement during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:147–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  155. Nair GM, Nery PB, Redpath CJ, et al. Atrioesophageal fistula in the era of atrial fibrillation ablation: a review. Can J Cardiol 2014;30:388–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  156. Parikh V, Swarup V, Hantla J, et al. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a novel preshaped nitinol esophageal deviator to successfully deflect the esophagus and ablate left atrium without esophageal temperature rise during atrial fibrillation ablation: The DEFLECT GUT study. Heart Rhythm. 2018;pii: S1547-5271(18)30362-X; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  157. Chugh A, Rubenstein J, Good E, et al. Mechanical displacement of the esophagus in patients undergoing left atrial ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm 2009;6:319–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  158. Edriss H, Denega T, Test V, Nugent K. Pulmonary vein stenosis complicating radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A literature review. Resp Med 2016;117:215–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  159. Abhishek F, Heist EK, Barrett C, et al. Effectiveness of a strategy to reduce major vascular complications from catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2011;30:211–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  160. Yamagata K, Wichterle D, Roubicek T, et al. Ultrasound-guided versus conventional femoral venipuncture for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a multicentre randomized efficacy and safety trial (ULTRA-FAST trial). Europace 2018;20:1107–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  161. Luik A, Radzewitz A, Kieser M, et al. cryoballoon versus open irrigated radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority FreezeAF study. Circulation 2015;132:1311–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  162. Providencia R, Defaye P, Lambiase PD, et al. Results from a multicentre comparison of cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: is cryoablation more reproducible? Europace 2017;19:48–57.
  163. Chierchia GB, Mugnai G, Stroker E, et al. Incidence of real-time recordings of pulmonary vein potentials using the third-generation short-tip cryoballoon. Europace 2016;18:1158–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  164. Lin T, Ouyang F, Kuck KH, Tilz R. THERMOCOOL(R) SMARTTOUCH(R) CATHETER – The Evidence So Far for Contact Force Technology and the Role of VISITAG MODULE. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2014;3:44–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  165. Itoh T, Kimura M, Tomita H, et al. Reduced residual conduction gaps and favourable outcome in contact force-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation. Europace 2016;18(4):531-7.
  166. Jarman JWE, Panikker S, Das M, et al. Relationship between contact force sensing technology and medium-term outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicenter study of 600 patients. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2015;26(4):378-84.
  167. Lee G, Hunter RJ, Lovell MJ, et al. Use of a contact force-sensing ablation catheter with advanced catheter location significantly reduces fluoroscopy time and radiation dose in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2016;18(2):211-8.
  168. Nair GM, Yeo C, MacDonald Z, et al. Three-year outcomes and reconnection patterns after initial contact force guided pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2017;28(9):984-93.
  169. Sigmund E, Puererfellner H, Derndorfer M, et al. Optimizing radiofrequency ablation of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation by direct catheter force measurement – a case-matched comparison in 198 patients. PACE. 2015;38(2):201-8.
  170. Wutzler A, Huemer M, Parwani AS, Blaschke F, Haverkamp W, Boldt LH. Contact force mapping during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: procedural data and one-year follow-up. AMS 2014;10(2):266-72.