CONCLUSIONS: The use of the AI software led to reduced levels of Hs-cTnI and lower AEQ in AF patients submitted to PVI. However, neither Hs-cTnI nor AEQ was predictors of arrhythmia recurrence in AI-guided PVI. After a median follow-up of 26 (IQR 20-32) months, there was a significant reduction in arrhythmia recurrence in the AI group (15% vs. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, patients having AI-guided PVI had lower Hs-cTnI values (1580 ng/L vs. Procedural endpoints and 2-year outcomes were assessed and compared to those of 75 propensity score-matched patients submitted to non-AI-guided pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS: Prospective single-center study of 75 consecutive patients referred for paroxysmal AF ablation from October 2017 to January 2019. Our goals were to evaluate the impact of the Ablation Index (AI) software on Hs-cTnI and AEQ levels and to assess whether these markers are predictors of arrhythmia recurrence. All rights reserved.īACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the relationship between high-sensitivity cardiac Troponin I (Hs-cTnI) and the ablation effectiveness quotient (AEQ) with arrhythmia recurrence following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.
CONCLUSIONS: In paroxysmal AF patients submitted to ablation, a tailored PVI guided by the Ablation Index rendered a 20-minute waiting period unnecessary. At 1-year follow-up there was no significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence between groups (9.5% in group A vs. Acute PV reconnection was identified in 3.8% (95% CI, 1.7% to 5.9%) of PVs in the study group B compared to 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0% to 4.8%) of PVs in the group A (p=0.002 for non-inferiority). RESULTS: During the enrollment period, 167 patients (56% males, mean age of 57☑4 years) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria - 84 patients (308 PV) in the waiting period group (group A) and 83 patients (314 PV) in the group without a waiting period (group B). PVI was guided by tailored AI values and an inter-lesion distance ≤6mm. A per-protocol analysis was designed to determine whether a strategy of dismissing the waiting period after PVI was noninferior to waiting 20minutes for identifying acute PV reconnection.
Acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection after adenosine challenge was the primary endpoint. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PVI with versus without a waiting period of 20 minutes. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized study of consecutive patients referred for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation from May 2019 to February 2020. We aim to evaluate whether a waiting period is still necessary after PVI guided by the Ablation Index (AI). PURPOSE: Since the widespread availability of contact-force sensing catheters, the need of a waiting period after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has not been reassessed.