Efficacy and safety of ablation index-guided catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis

Abstract Aims  Despite recent advances in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR), and AF recurrence remain significantly high. Ablation index (AI) is a new method incorporating contact force, time, and power that should optimize procedural outcomes. We aime...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Europace (London, England) England), 2020-11, Vol.22 (11), p.1659-1671
Hauptverfasser: Ioannou, Adam, Papageorgiou, Nikolaos, Lim, Wei Yao, Wongwarawipat, Tanakal, Hunter, Ross J, Dhillon, Gurpreet, Schilling, Richard J, Creta, Antonio, El Haddad, Milad, Duytschaever, Matthias, Hussein, Ahmed, Dhiraj, Gupta, Ahsan, Syed, Providencia, Rui
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Aims  Despite recent advances in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR), and AF recurrence remain significantly high. Ablation index (AI) is a new method incorporating contact force, time, and power that should optimize procedural outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AI-guided catheter ablation compared to a non-AI-guided approach. Methods and results  A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE (via PubMED), EMBASE, COCHRANE, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) databases (from inception to 1 July 2019). We included only studies that compared AI-guided with non-AI-guided catheter ablation of AF. Eleven studies reporting on 2306 patients were identified. Median follow-up period was 12 months. Ablation index-guided ablation had a significant shorter procedural time (141.0 vs. 152.8 min, P = 0.01; I2 = 90%), ablation time (21.8 vs. 32.0 min, P 
ISSN:1099-5129
1532-2092
DOI:10.1093/europace/euaa224