Background: Catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) were significantly curtailed during the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to conserve healthcare resources and limit exposure. There is little data regarding peri-procedural outcomes of medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. We enacted protocols to safely reboot AF ablation while limiting healthcare resource utilization. Objective: To evaluate acute and subacute outcomes of protocols instituted for reboot of AF ablation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Perioperative healthcare utilization and acute procedural outcomes were analyzed for consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation under COVID-19 protocols (2020 cohort; n=111) and compared to those of patients who underwent AF ablation during the same time period in 2019 (2019 cohort; n=200). Newly implemented practices included pre-operative COVID-19 testing, selective transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), utilization of venous closure, and same-day discharge when clinically appropriate. Results: Pre-ablation COVID-19 testing was positive in 1 of 111 patients. There were 0 cases ablation-related COVID-19 transmission, and 0 major complications in either cohort. Pre-procedure TEE was performed in significantly fewer 2020 cohort patients compared to the 2019 cohort patients (68.4% vs. 97.5%, p <0.001, respectively) despite greater prevalence of persistent arrhythmia in the 2020 cohort. Same day discharge was achieved in 68% of patients in the 2020 cohort, compared to 0% of patients in the 2019 cohort. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate safe resumption of complex electrophysiology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing healthcare utilization and maintaining quality of care. Protocols instituted may be generalizable to other types of procedures and settings.

Objective: To compare multiple-procedure catheter ablation outcomes of a stepwise approach versus left atrial posterior wall isolation (LA PWI) in patients undergoing non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) ablation. Background: Unfavorable outcomes for stepwise ablation of NPAF in large clinical trials may be attributable to pro-arrhythmic effects of incomplete ablation lines. It is unknown if a more extensive initial ablation strategy results in improved outcomes following multiple ablation procedures. Methods: 222 consecutive patients with NPAF underwent first-time ablation using a contact-force sensing ablation catheter utilizing either a stepwise (Group 1, n=111) or LA PWI (Group 2, n=111) approach. The duration of follow-up was 36 months. The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia >30s. Secondary endpoints were freedom from persistent arrhythmia, repeat ablation, and recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation. Results: There was similar freedom from atrial arrhythmias after index ablation for both stepwise and LA PWI groups at 36 months (60% vs. 69%, p=0.1). The stepwise group was more likely to present with persistent recurrent arrhythmia (29% vs 14%, p=0.005) and more likely to undergo second catheter ablation (32% vs. 12%, p<0.001) compared to LA PWI patients. Recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation was more likely in the stepwise group compared to the LA PWI group (15% vs 4%, p=0.003). Conclusions: Compared to a stepwise approach, LA PWI for patients with NPAF resulted in a similar incidence of any atrial arrhythmia, lower incidence of persistent arrhythmia, and fewer repeat ablations. Results for repeat ablation were not improved with a more extensive initial approach.

Background: Improved catheter stability is associated with decreased arrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Recently, atrial voltage mapping in AF was demonstrated to correlate better with scar as compared to mapping in sinus rhythm (SR). However, it is unknown whether ablation of persistent AF in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing or in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing results in differences in catheter stability or arrhythmia recurrence. Methods: We analyzed 53 consecutive patients undergoing first-time persistent AF ablation with pulmonary vein and posterior wall isolation: 27 were cardioverted, mapped, and ablated in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing, and 26 were mapped and ablated in AF with ventricular pacing. Ablation data was extracted from the mapping system and analyzed using custom MATLAB software to determine high-frequency (60Hz) catheter excursion as a novel metric for catheter spatial stability. Results: There was no difference in catheter stability as assessed by maximal catheter excursion, mean catheter excursion, or contact force variability between the atrial-paced and ventricular-paced patients. Ventricular-paced patients did have significantly greater mean contact forces compared to atrial-paced patients. One year arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the atrial paced and ventricular paced patients (78% vs 67%, p = 0.31). Conclusion: For patients with persistent AF, ablation in AF with ventricular pacing results in similar catheter stability and arrhythmia recurrence as compared to cardioversion and ablation in sinus rhythm with atrial pacing. Given the improved fidelity of mapping in AF, mapping and ablating during AF with ventricular pacing may be preferred.