Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2025
Non-fluoroscopic Catheter Tracking for Fluoroscopy Reduction in Interventional Electrophysiology
Published on: May 26, 2015
Procedural and Clinical Outcomes of High-Frequency Low-Tidal Volume Ventilation Plus Rapid-Atrial Pacing in
Paul C Zei1, Daniela Hincapie1, Joan Rodriguez-Taveras2
1Harvard Medical School, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Background:
High-frequency low-tidal-volume (HFLTV) ventilation is a safe and cost-effective strategy that improves catheter stability, first-pass pulmonary vein isolation, and freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the incremental value of adding rapid-atrial pacing (RAP) to HFLTV-ventilation has not yet been determined.
Objective:
To evaluate the effect of HFLTV-ventilation plus RAP during RFCA of paroxysmal AF on procedural and long-term clinical outcomes compared to HFLTV-ventilation alone.
Methods:
Patients from the REAL-AF prospective multicenter registry, who underwent RFCA of paroxysmal AF using either HFLTV + RAP (500-600 msec) or HFLTV ventilation alone from April 2020 to February 2023 were included. The primary outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics, long-term clinical outcomes, and procedure-related complications.
Results:
A total of 545 patients were included in the analysis (HFLTV + RAP = 327 vs. HFLTV = 218). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. No differences were observed in procedural (HFLTV + RAP 74 [57-98] vs. HFLTV 66 [53-85.75] min, p = 0.617) and RF (HFLTV + RAP 15.15 [11.22-21.22] vs. HFLTV 13.99 [11.04-17.13] min, p = 0.620) times. Both groups showed a similar freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up (HFLTV + RAP 82.68% vs. HFLTV 86.52%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI [0.94-2.16], p = 0.093). There were no significant differences in freedom from AF-related symptoms (HFLTV + RAP 91.4% vs. HFLTV 93.1%, p = 0.476) or AF-related hospitalizations (HFLTV + RAP 98.5% vs. HFLTV 97.2%, p = 0.320). Procedure-related complications were low in both groups (HFLTV + RAP 0.6% vs. HFLTV 0%, p = 0.247).
Conclusion:
In patients undergoing RFCA for paroxysmal AF, adding RAP to HFLTV-ventilation was not associated with improved procedural and long-term clinical outcomes.
