Long-term clinical outcomes of focal impulse and rotor modulation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: A multicenter experience.
BACKGROUND
New approaches to ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) include focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM). Studies of this technology with short-term follow-up have shown favorable outcomes.


OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to characterize the long-term results of FIRM ablation in a cohort of patients treated at 2 academic medical centers.


METHODS
All FIRM-guided ablation procedures (n = 43) at UCLA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center performed between January 2012 and October 2013 were included for analysis. During AF, FIRM software constructed phase maps from unipolar atrial electrograms to identify putative AF sources. These sites were targeted for ablation, along with pulmonary vein isolation in 77% of patients.


RESULTS
AF was paroxysmal in 56%, and 67% had prior AF ablation. All patients had rotors identified (mean 2.6 ± 1.2 per patient, 77% in LA). Prespecified acute procedural end-point was achieved in 47% of patients (n = 20): AF termination in 4, organization in 7, >10% slowing of AF cycle length in 9. Acute complications occurred in 4 patients (9.3%). At 18 ± 7 months of follow-up, 37% were free from documented recurrent AF after a 3-month blanking period; 21% were free from documented atrial tachyarrhythmias and off antiarrhythmic drugs. Multivariate analysis did not reveal any significant predictors of AF recurrence, including pattern of AF, acute procedural success, or prior failed ablation.


CONCLUSIONS
Long-term clinical results after FIRM ablation in this cohort of patients showed poor efficacy, different from previously published studies. Randomized studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and clinical utility of this ablation approach for treating AF.
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: ebuch@mednet.ucla.edu.
Eric
E
Buch
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Michael
M
Share
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Roderick
R
Tung
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Peyman
P
Benharash
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
Parikshit
P
Sharma
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
Jayanthi
J
Koneru
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California; Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.
Ravi
R
Mandapati
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
Kenneth A
KA
Ellenbogen
UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, UCLA Health System, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Kalyanam
K
Shivkumar
D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000379:methods*; D022062:Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006325:Heart Atria / Q000503:physiopathology*; D006329:Heart Conduction System / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Arrhythmia; Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Clinical electrophysiology