Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety between High-Power Short-Duration Ablation and Conventional Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jin, Shuyu; Fu, Lu; Jiang, Junrong; Ye, Xingdong; Liu, Huiyi; Chen, Yanlin; Pu, Sijia; Wu, Shulin; Xue, Yumei

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6013474

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 6013474 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6013474

Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety between High-Power Short-Duration Ablation and Conventional Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shuyu Jin,^1,2Lu Fu,¹Junrong Jiang,¹Xingdong Ye,¹Huiyi Liu,¹Yanlin Chen,¹Sijia Pu,¹Shulin Wu,¹and Yumei Xue^1,2

Academic Editor: Yuli Huang

Received14 Apr 2022

Revised13 Jun 2022

Accepted22 Jun 2022

Published16 Aug 2022

Abstract

Aim. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety between high-power short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and conventional RFA in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods. Studies comparing HPSD and traditional applications in patients undergoing initial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation from inception through December 2021 were searched on Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results. The meta-analysis included seventeen studies with a total of 4934 patients. HPSD group decreased procedure duration (mean difference (MD) −38.28 min, ), RF duration (MD −20.51 min, ), fluoroscopy duration (MD −5.19 min, ), and acute pulmonary vein reconnection (Odds ratio (OR) 0.40, ), while improving the freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12–1.94, ) and rates of first-pass isolation (OR 8.92, ). Compared with the conventional group, freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one-year follow-up was higher in the HPSD group without the guidance of AI/LSI (OR 1.66, ) and studies with a power setting of 40–50 W (OR 1.93, ). Nevertheless, the two groups had similar effectiveness with a power setting of 50 W in the HPSD RFA (OR 1.10, ). There was no difference in complications between the two groups (). Conclusion. HPSD RFA was associated with shorter procedure duration, higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia, and comparable safety compared to conventional RFA.

1. Introduction

Catheter ablation is recommended as an effective therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure, and mortality and improve the quality of life [1]. As the cornerstone of AF catheter [2, 3], pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) aims to produce continuous, transmural, and durable lesions around the pulmonary vein. Remarkably, pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR) could be a vital driver of AF recurrence [4, 5]. The High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation strategy comprises the use of higher RF power (≥40 W) and shorter duration (5–15 s) of each RF energy application, and HPSD applications result in larger lesion diameters and smaller lesion depths compared to conventional (20–35 W, 10–30 s) applications [6]. Recent studies [7–9] demonstrate that HPSD is safe and efficient enough for treating AF which reduces radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) and procedure times without increasing major complication rates. Meta-analyses and randomized controlled studies comparing atrial arrhythmia recurrence and rates of PVR between HPSD and conventional RFA settings with or without the guidance of ablation Index (AI) or lesion size index (LSI) are lacking. Therefore, this meta-analysis compares the effectiveness and safety of HPSD and LPLD settings in RFA for AF [10].

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [11] (PRISMA 2009 checklist in Supplementary material online, Table S1). An all-round search was conducted in Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception through December 2021 by two reviewers (Shuyu Jin and Yumei Xue) independently. The search involved the following keywords: (“Atrial fibrillation” OR AF) AND (“High power” OR “High-power shorter-duration” OR HPSD)．

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The studies included fulfilled the following criteria: (1) cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, or randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in patients with age≥18, with paroxysmal and/or persistent AF undergoing initial catheter ablation; (2) comparison between HPSD RFA and conventional RFA; (3) studies must meet the following for each ablation strategy: HPSD settings: Power≥40 W, with ablation duration of 5 to 15 s per site including the posterior wall; conventional settings: Power ≤35 W, duration >10 s for any ablation; (4) reported outcome data including but not lcomparesdure time, freedom from atrial arrhythmia, total complications, redo-ablation procedure; (5) the follow-up duration was at least 6 months.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) conference abstracts, case reports, review articles, meta-analyses, editorials, or nonEnglish articles; (2) an equivocal study design or group allocation.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

A standardized data collection form was extracted by two investigators independently to obtain the following data from each study including name of the first author, year of publication, country of origin, study population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, demographic data of participants, and ablation procedure details. Disagreements were arbitrated by a third person in rereview. The original author was contacted by mail for access if the full text could be obtained. For literature in which the same study populations were reported many times or repeatedly published, only one with the most complete data was included. The quality of these studies was evaluated by two investigators (Shuyu Jin and Yumei Xue) using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies [12] and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled studies (RCTs) [13].

2.4. Definitions

HPSD RFA : ablation power ≥40 W, including the posterior wall, with ablation duration of 5 to 15 s per site. Conventional RFA : ablation power limited to 20–35 W, with a longer ablation duration of 10–30 s per site. Procedure time: time from the application of local anesthesia to the withdrawal of all catheters. RF time: total time from the first to the last ablation site. Fluoroscopy time: total time for fluoroscopy from the start to the end of the procedure. First-pass PVI : rate of complete PVI after first-pass circumferential RF delivery. Atrial arrhythmia recurrence: any symptomatic or asymptomatic atrial arrhythmia lasting >30 s after completing the blanking period post ablation. Acute PVR : acute reconnection was assessed at 20–30 minutes post ablation, and adenosine was administered intravenously (dosed to achieve transient heart block) or waiting for 30 minutes following the last RF application to assess PV reconnection, including spontaneous reconnection and dormant conduction. Major complication: complications that required any intervention or prolonged hospital stay including pericarditis, complete atrioventricular block, sinus node dysfunction, phrenic nerve palsy, stroke, ptocardial effusion, vascular access issues, steam pop, esophageal lesions, and death.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Binary variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous variables were analyzed using the mean difference (MD) and the corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the inverse-variance method. A two-sided -value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. The fixed-effects model and the random-effects model were considered based on the level of heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of studies was evaluated by Cochran’s Q and the I² statistic. I² lies between 0% and 100% with larger values showing increasing heterogeneity. I² value > 50% was considered high degrees of heterogeneity and the random model was used in the subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis excluding the trials that potentially biased the results to avoid publication bias, otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used [14, 15]. We performed sensitivity analysis by omitting one study successively to evaluate the impact of the individual studies on the pooled effect size. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger’s regression tests ( was considered significant). In addition to using the STATA 17.0 statistical software (College Station, TX) for funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests, the rest of the statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Center; The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

3. Results

3.1. Eligible Studies

The flowchart of the detailed search progress is illustrated in Figure 1. After removing the duplicated articles and browsing the abstracts, titles, or full texts, consequently, seventeen studies [16–32] with 4934 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Among these studies, ten [16, 18–21, 23, 24, 27–29] were retrospective cohort studies and seven [17, 22, 25, 26, 30–32] were prospective studies in which only one study [30] was a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

3.2. Study Characteristics

Baseline characteristics among these studies are shown in Tables 1 and 2. There were 2397 who underwent HPSD RFA and 2537 who underwent conventional ablation procedures. In the HPSD group and conventional group, the mean age was 63.53 and 61.88 years, with 67.58% and 70.40% males, respectively. The baseline characteristics were not a significant difference between the two groups and the followup duration was at least 6 months. Study quality assessed by NOS demonstrated that seven studies scored 9 and ten studies scored 8, which indicated the good quality of the included studies (Table 3).

3.3. Primary Pooled Analysis

Total procedure duration was significantly shorter in the HPSD RFA group compared with the conventional RFA group (MD −38.28 min (95% CI −47.08 to −29.49); ) (Figure 2(a)). Compared with the conventional RFA group, total RF duration (MD -20.51 min (95% CI −25.96 to −15.06); ) (Figure 2(b)) and total fluoroscopy duration (MD −5.19 min (95% CI −8.02 to −2.37); ) (Figure 2(c)) were also significantly shorter in the HPSD RFA group. First-pass isolation (OR 8.92, 95% CI 2.40–33.09, ) (Figure 3) and freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12–1.94, ) (Figure 3) were significantly higher in the HPSD RFA group when compared with the conventional group. Acute PVR was significantly lower in the HPSD RFA group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23–0.69, ) (Figure 3). There was no difference between the two groups regarding total complications (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72–1.25, ) (Figure 4). Among these studies, only four studies described PVR during redo procedures, and there was no difference in PVR between the two groups (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.29–1.46, ) (Figure 4).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3

Forest plots of the primary pooled analysis demonstrating the effect of high-power short-duration RFA vs. conventional RFA in patients with atrial fibrillation. Data are events in each group and weighted odds ratios. The horizontal line is the 95% CI. The diamond shape is the pooled mean difference of all studies. CI: confidence interval; RFA: radiofrequency ablation, PVR: pulmonary vein reconnection. (a) First-pass isolation, (b) freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year, and (c) acute PVR.

(a)

(b)

There was significant heterogeneity with I²>50% for the outcomes of procedure duration (93%), RF duration (98%), fluoroscopy duration (95%), first-pass isolation (81%), freedom from atrial arrhythmia (73%), and acute PVR (72%). All summary estimates from pooled analyses were made using a random-effects model rather than a fixed-effects model to reduce the influence of heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the above results during the sequential exclusion of studies except for first-pass isolation, freedom from atrial arrhythmia, and acute PVR. Low heterogeneity following exclusion of two studies [28, 31] based on freedom from atrial arrhythmia (I² = 2%) and one study [32] based on acute PVR (I² = 0). Despite reduced heterogeneity, there were no changes in the results of differences between two the groups. Funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests of the outcomes of the primary pooled analysis are shown in Supplementary Materials, Figure S1.

3.4. Subgroup Analysis

3.4.1. Studies with the Guidance of AI/LSI in Ablation

There were 5 studies [16, 21, 24, 29, 30] with a total of 739 patients (366 in the HPSD group, 373 in the conventional group) that ablated with the guidance of AI or LSI. Whether with the guidance of AI or LSI, total procedure duration (MD −21.08 min (95% CI −24.63 to −17.54); ) and RF duration [MD −9.43 min (95% CI −12.21 to −6.65); ] (Supplementary Materials, Figures S2, (a), (b)) were shorter in the HPSD RFA group. Guided by AI/LSI, there was no apparent difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.88–2.25, and PVR (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.40–5.98, ) (Supplementary Materials, Figures S2, (c), (d)) between the two groups. However, the HPSD RFA group demonstrated higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.12–2.47, ) and lower PVR (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17–0.61, ) (Supplementary Materials, Figures S2, (c), (d)) without the guidance of AI/LSI.

3.4.2. Studies with 50 W vs 40–50 W in the High-Power Short-Duration Radio Frequency Ablation Group

In the HPSD RFA group, there were 9 studies [16, 17, 23–25, 27–29, 32] where ablation was performed with a setting of 50 W, while 7 studies [18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 30, 31] with a power setting of 40–50 W. To reduce heterogeneity, two studies [20, 32] exceeding the power of 50 W were excluded. Without increased complication rates, freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year was higher in the HPSD RFA group with the power setting of 40–50 W (), conversely, no difference was found in this endpoint between the two groups with the power setting of 50 W () (Supplementary Materials, Figure S3). At 50 W or 40–50 W, total procedure duration (), total RF duration (), and fluoroscopy duration () (Supplementary Materials, Figure S4) were both significantly shorter in the HPSD RFA group.

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis provides a more comprehensive assessment of HPSD RFA and conventional RFA in patients with AF. As in the previous studies [8, 9, 33, 34], our results suggest that HPSD RFA may be more effective with higher first-pass isolation and freedom from atrial arrhythmia and lower acute PVR when compared with conventional RFA. Additionally, there was no difference in safety outcomes between the two groups. However, our study had more findings. In our study, there was no difference in PVR between the two groups that described redo procedures. In subgroup analysis, there was no difference between the two groups using AI/LSI-guided ablation for freedom from atrial arrhythmia. And HPSD group with a power setting of 40–50 W other than 50 W had better efficacy when compared with the conventional group.

PVI is the cornerstone of AF ablation [35], however, PVR is frequent and is mostly the result of catheter instability, tissue edema, and a reversible nontransmural injury [36]. One of the main reasons for AF recurrence is the recovery of the conduction between the pulmonary veins and left atrium [37], so continuous and transmural lines are key to the success of ablation. In animal studies, the lesions were wider and HPSD ablation resulted in 100% contiguous lines with transmural lesions which improved lesion-to-lesion uniformity [38]. In 6 swine, HPSD ablation was performed using the QDOT MICRO^TM Catheter at a setting of 90 W for 4 s and conventional ablation was delivered using a Thermocool Smarttouch SF Catheter at a setting of 30 W for 30 s, Barkagan et al. found that all lines remained intact after 30 days in HPSD ablation, while none of the lines were continuous in conventional ablation [39]. Although there was variation in the definition of freedom from arrhythmia in each study and the use of AADs, our analysis favors the HPSD RFA strategy over the LPLD RFA strategy for lower acute PVR, higher first-pass isolation, and higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia. Nevertheless, in our analysis, there was no difference between the two groups in PVR during the redo procedure. Some patients might have had recurrence during the followup period, but they did not undergo redo procedures. Furthermore, the followup was determined to be one year, therefore all the reasons above may underestimate the rate of chronic PVR.

However, the appropriate power for the RF ablation is not clear. One study [32] used higher power of 70 W for 5–7 s and demonstrated significantly less arrhythmia recurrence during one-year followup (26.9% vs 34.9%, ) with no major complications. The QDOT-FAST trial [40] used 90 W for 4 s per site in 52 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and 94.2% of patients were in sinus rhythm at 3 months with one pseudoaneurysm and one asymptomatic thromboembolism. In our meta-analysis, mostly half of the studies of HPSD RFA used 50 W, and the others used 45–50 W. For freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year, the HPSD RFA group demonstrated higher efficacy with the power setting of 45–50 W, whereas the two groups were similar with the power setting of 50 W. To reduce complications when ablating with 50 W on the posterior atrial wall, ablation duration was shorter than that of 40/45 W. Transmural damage may not be achieved because the lesion is shallower，as well as in less total energy, resulting in no difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups [41]. Winkle et al. [42] reported that 6 independent predictors affected the outcomes for HPSD ablation including age, gender, type of AF, left atrial size, type of catheter, and posterior wall isolation. Therefore, further studies will be required to explore the most optimal power and duration for HPSD RFA to bring the highest clinical value.

Previous studies indicate force-time integral (FTI) as a target value to achieve permanent PVI, while not considering power settings. Consequently, only 72% of PVs remained isolated in 3 months [43]. AI is a novel ablation quality marker that incorporates contact force (CF), time, and power in a weighted formula and LSI is a multiparametric index incorporating CF and radiofrequency current data across time. Many reports demonstrated that AI or LSI can be used as the correlation index of pulmonary vein persistent isolation [44, 45]. HPSD group had a lower recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 12 months, higher first-pass isolation, lower acute PVR, and similar complication rates in the AI-guided group compared with a non AI-guided group [33, 46]. Moreover, HPSD-AI or LSI groups might increase freedom from atrial arrhythmia for patients with additional ablation beyond PVI [33]. Okamatsu et al. [47] studied a group of persistent AF patients undergoing AI-guided PVI with target values of 550 for anterior and 400 for posterior left atrial regions, with 22% patients demonstrating late PVR during repeat procedures after 2 months and 95% patients were in sinus rhythm at 12 months. However, freedom from atrial arrhythmia and acute PVR failed to demonstrate a significant advantage with AI or LSI in our analysis. Regrettably, only 5 studies were included in our subgroup analysis with AI or LSI-guided procedure, of which only 4 studies and 2 studies respectively illustrated freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year and acute PVR rates, and each study had different ablation strategies, antiarrhythmic drug use, and recurrence of arrhythmia definition which might influence these results. We did not analyze first-pass isolation because only one study reported this data. Therefore, more well-designed and large-scale RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

Safety during elective PVI procedures is of worthwhile concern. Radiofrequency catheter ablation is a technique where conductive and resistive heating are delivered through electrode catheters to myocardial tissue creating a thermal lesion. Irreversible myocardial tissue injury with cellular death occurs once the temperature of approximately 50°C has been reached, whereas conductive heating transfers thermal energy directly to deeper tissue [48]. Unlike conventional ablation, the HPSD ablation strategy results in a higher resistive heating and lower conductive heating, which may reduce collateral injury to surrounding structures such as the esophagus [38, 49]. Late gadolinium enhancement MRI of the esophagus in 574 patients following AF ablation using HPSD settings of 50 W for 5 seconds reported a 14.3% incidence of moderate to severe thermal oesophageal late gadolinium enhancement with no fistulas [23]. Takemoto et al. [50] reported that high-power settings based on the AI or LSI might reduce the collateral thermal damage by comparing the use of 20 W and 40 W with the same AI or LSI for RF applications. In 10284 patients, HPSD RFA strategies performed at 45–50 W have very low complication rates with 1 death due to an atrioesophageal fistula and 33 cases of cardiac tamponade [51]. In our analysis, only one case of cardiac tamponade occurring in the conventional RFA group was reported by Hamsom et al. [25], and cases of aterioesophageal fistula were not observed in each group. Our results demonstrated that the HPSD RFA strategy appears to be as safe as the conventional RFA strategy.

In terms of procedure duration, RF duration, and fluoroscopy time, the HPSD RFA strategy represents distinct advantages compared with the conventional RFA strategy whether in the subgroup analysis or not. Additionally, the reduction in procedure times can decrease the intravenous fluid volumes administered to patients which may benefit patients with cardiac insufficiency. Finally, less radiation exposure will also benefit both patients and physicians [9].

To conclude, our results of the pooled analysis favor the use of HPSD settings over conventional settings. However, more RCT studies are needed to further assess the above results.

4.1. Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations in our study. First, we have only one RCT included in our meta-analysis while the rest were nonrandomized comparative studies. Although, all included studies were of good quality based on the Newcastle Ottawa scale, reflecting a real-world experience, more randomized controlled trials would provide better evidence for the difference in outcomes between two groups. Second, there were variations in each study in terms of power, types of catheters, contact force, target temperature, antiarrhythmic drug use, and the definition of freedom from atrial arrhythmia, resulting in significant heterogeneity between groups. And seldom included studies analyzed total energy during ablation procedure which we could not compare between two groups. Third, the included studies not only performed PVI but also additional linear ablation and different surgical methods might affect the maintenance of sinus rhythm. At last, we have a limited number of studies that reported PVR during redo procedures and with the guidance of AI/LSI. Finally, the exact anatomical locations of PVR were not clearly described in each study, so we could not analyze the specific locations of PVR.

5. Conclusions

High-power short-duration RFA was related to better procedural effectiveness and higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia with comparable safety when compared with conventional RFA. Additionally, HPSD RFA decreases procedural, RF, and fluoroscopy durations. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis, HPSD RFA demonstrates a feasible, effective and safe approach for AF ablation.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81870254), Science and Technology Programs of Guangdong Province (No. 2019B020230004), the National Key Research and Development Project (2018YFC1312502), and Guangdong Special Funds for Science and Technology Innovation Strategy, China (stability support for scientific research institutions affiliated to Guangdong Province, GDCI 2021).

Supplementary Materials

(1) Supplementary file 1: funnel plots for various outcomes from the primary pooled analysis comparing HPSD RFA with conventional RFA. (2) Supplementary file 2: forest plots for the subgroup analysis of HPSD RFA compared to conventional RFA. (3) PRISMA 2009 Checklist. (Supplementary Materials)

References

R. Parameswaran, A. M. Al-Kaisey, and J. M. Kalman, “Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: current indications and evolving technologies,” Nature Reviews Cardiology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 210–225, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Buist, D. P. Zipes, and A. Elvan, “Atrial fibrillation ablation strategies and technologies: past, present, and future,” Clinical Research in Cardiology, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 775–788, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Haïssaguerre, P. Jaïs, D. C. Shah et al., “Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 10, pp. 659–666, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Qiu, Y. Wang, D. W. Wang, M. Hu, and G. Chen, “Update on high-power short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 2499–2508, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Shah, A. F. Barakat, W. I. Saliba et al., “Recurrent atrial fibrillation after initial long-term ablation success: electrophysiological findings and outcomes of repeat ablation procedures,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, vol. 11, no. 4, Article ID e005785, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bourier, J. Duchateau, K. Vlachos et al., “High-power short-duration versus standard radiofrequency ablation: insights on lesion metrics,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1570–1575, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. F. Chen, J. Wu, C. L. Jin, M. J. Liu, and Y. Z. Xu, “Comparison of high-power short-duration and low-power long-duration radiofrequency ablation for treating atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical Cardiology, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1631–1640, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kewcharoen, C. Techorueangwiwat, C. Kanitsoraphan et al., “High-power short duration and low-power long duration in atrial fibrillation ablation: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 71–82, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Ravi, A. Poudyal, Q. U. A. Abid et al., “High-power short duration vs. conventional radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” EP Europace, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 710–721, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Hindricks, T. Potpara, N. Dagres et al., “ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC,” European Heart Journal, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 373–498, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, Article ID e1000097, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Stang, “Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses,” European Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 603–605, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Moher, D. J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, and D. F. Stroup, “Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement,” The Lancet, vol. 354, no. 9193, pp. 1896–1900, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, S. G. Thompson, J. J. Deeks, and D. G. Altman, “Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses,” BMJ (Clinical research ed)., vol. 327, no. 7414, pp. 557–560, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Borenstein, L. V. Hedges, J. P. Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein, “A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 97–111, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Dikdan, J. Junarta, S. Bodempudi, N. Upadhyay, Z. Pang, and D. R. Frisch, “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,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 608–615, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Ejima, S. Higuchi, K. Yazaki et al., “Comparison of high-power and conventional-power radiofrequency energy deliveries in pulmonary vein isolation using unipolar signal modification as a local endpoint,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1702–1708, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. C. Chen, P. T. Lee, V. Van Ba et al., “Comparison of lesion characteristics between conventional and high-power short-duration ablation using contact force-sensing catheter in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation,” BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 387, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Nilsson, X. Chen, S. Pehrson, and J. H. Svendsen, “The effectiveness of a high output/short duration radiofrequency current application technique in segmental pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation,” Europace, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 962–965, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Park, S. Y. Yang, M. Kim et al., “Efficacy and safety of high-power short-duration radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Front Cardiovasc Med, vol. 8, Article ID 709585, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kyriakopoulou, J. Y. Wielandts, T. Strisciuglio et al., “Evaluation of higher power delivery during RF pulmonary vein isolation using optimized and contiguous lesions,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1091–1098, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Pambrun, C. Durand, M. Constantin et al., “High-power (40-50 W) radiofrequency ablation guided by unipolar signal modification for pulmonary vein isolation: experimental findings and clinical results,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, vol. 12, no. 6, Article ID e007304, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Baher, M. Kheirkhahan, S. J. Rechenmacher et al., “High-power radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: using late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging as a novel index of esophageal injury,” JACC Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1583–1594, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kumagai and H. Toyama, “High-power, short-duration ablation during box isolation for atrial fibrillation,” Journal of arrhythmia, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 899–904, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Hansom, W. Alqarawi, D. H. Birnie et al., “High-power, short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation compared with a conventional approach: outcomes and reconnection patterns,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1219–1228, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. D. Yavin, E. Leshem, A. Shapira-Daniels et al., “Impact of high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation on long-term lesion durability for atrial fibrillation ablation,” JACC Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 973–985, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yazaki, K. Ejima, M. Kanai et al., “Impedance drop predicts acute electrical reconnection of the pulmonary vein-left atrium after pulmonary vein isolation using short-duration high-power exposure,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 575–584, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Bunch, H. T. May, T. L. Bair et al., “Long-term outcomes after low power, slower movement versus high power, faster movement irrigated-tip catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 184–189, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. O’Brien, M. Obeidat, N. Kozhuharov et al., “Procedural efficiencies, lesion metrics, and 12-month clinical outcomes for Ablation Index-guided 50 W ablation for atrial fibrillation,” Europace, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 878–886, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Wielandts, M. Kyriakopoulou, A. Almorad et al., “Prospective randomized evaluation of high power during CLOSE-guided pulmonary vein isolation: the POWER-AF study,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, vol. 14, no. 1, Article ID e009112, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Vassallo, L. L. Meigre, E. Serpa et al., “Reduced esophageal heating in high-power short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation in the contact force catheter era,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1185–1192, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kottmaier, M. Popa, F. Bourier et al., “Safety and outcome of very high-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation,” Europace, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 388–393, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, C. Gui, W. Wen, Y. He, W. Dai, and G. Zhong, “Safety and efficacy of high power shorter duration ablation guided by ablation index or lesion size index in atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Interventional Cardiology, vol. 2021, Article ID 5591590, pp. 1–12, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cui, Y. Chu, Y. Han, and S. Dong, “Comparison of higher-power and conventional power ablation of atrial fibrillation using contact force-sensing catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Calkins, G. Hindricks, R. Cappato et al., “2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. e275–e444, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Han and C. Hwang, “How to achieve complete and permanent pulmonary vein isolation without complications,” Korean Circ J, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 291–300, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. H. Jiang and C. Y. Jiang, “Pulmonary vein reconnection in patients with and without atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation,” JACC Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 484–486, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Leshem, I. Zilberman, C. M. Tschabrunn et al., “High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: biophysical characterization,” JACC Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 467–479, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Barkagan, F. M. Contreras‐Valdes, E. Leshem, A. E. Buxton, H. Nakagawa, and E. Anter, “High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: safety, efficacy, and long-term durability,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1287–1296, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Y. Reddy, M. Grimaldi, T. De Potter et al., “Pulmonary vein isolation with very high power, short duration, temperature-controlled lesions: the QDOT-FAST trial,” JACC Clinical electrophysiology, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 778–786, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. D. Kotadia, S. E. Williams, and M. O’Neill, “High-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of AF,” Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 265–272, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Winkle, R. H. Mead, G. Engel et al., “High-power, short-duration atrial fibrillation ablations using contact force sensing catheters: outcomes and predictors of success including posterior wall isolation,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1223–1231, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. De Ponti, R. Marazzi, L. A. Doni, J. Marazzato, C. Baratto, and J. A. Salerno-Uriarte, “Optimization of catheter/tissue contact during pulmonary vein isolation: the impact of atrial rhythm,” EP Europace, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 288–294, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. D. Mattia, M. Crosato, S. Indiani et al., “Prospective evaluation of lesion index-guided pulmonary vein isolation technique in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 1-year follow-up,” Journal of Atrial Fibrillation, vol. 10, no. 6, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Solimene, V. Schillaci, G. Shopova et al., “Safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation guided by Ablation Index module,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Pranata, R. Vania, and I. Huang, “Ablation-index guided versus conventional contact-force guided ablation in pulmonary vein isolation - systematic review and meta-analysis,” Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 155–160, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Okamatsu, J. Koyama, Y. Sakai et al., “High-power application is associated with shorter procedure time and higher rate of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation in ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation ablation,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2751–2758, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. E. Haines, “The biophysics of radiofrequency catheter ablation in the heart: the importance of temperature monitoring,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 586–591, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ali-Ahmed, V. Goyal, M. Patel, F. Orelaru, D. E. Haines, and W. S. Wong, “High-power, low-flow, short-ablation duration-the key to avoid collateral injury?” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Takemoto, M. Takami, K. Fukuzawa et al., “Different tissue thermodynamics between the 40 W and 20 W radiofrequency power settings under the same ablation index/lesion size index,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 196–204, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Winkle, S. Mohanty, R. A. Patrawala et al., “Low complication rates using high power (45–50 W) for short duration for atrial fibrillation ablations,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 165–169, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Shuyu Jin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

289

Downloads

465

Citations