Randomized evaluation of redo ablation procedures of atrial fibrillation with focal impulse and rotor modulation-guided procedures: the REDO-FIRM study

dc.contributor.authorSpitzer, Stefan G.
dc.contributor.authorMiller, John M.
dc.contributor.authorSommer, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorSzili-Torok, Tamas
dc.contributor.authorReddy, Vivek Y.
dc.contributor.authorNölker, Georg
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Chris
dc.contributor.authorSarver, Anne
dc.contributor.authorWilber, David J.
dc.contributor.departmentMedicine, School of Medicine
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-04T14:05:59Z
dc.date.available2023-12-04T14:05:59Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractAims: REDO-FIRM evaluated safety and effectiveness of conventional vs. focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation of recurrent persistent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after an initial AF ablation procedure. Methods and results: This prospective, multicentre, randomized study included patients with a single prior AF ablation, but with recurrent AF and reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs). Conventional ablation generally included PV re-isolation; however, additional ablation was permitted per physician discretion. In the FIRM arm, beyond PV re-isolation, basket catheter-based FIRM mapping created dynamic animations of putative rotors, which were targeted for ablation. Between May 2016 and July 2019, 269 subjects were randomized, with 243 subjects completing 12-month follow-up. Ablation beyond re-pulmonary vein isolation, the FIRM vs. Conventional arms did not differ significantly: cavo-tricuspid isthmus -9.0% vs. 15.3%, caval vein isolation -1.5% vs. 0.8%, non-PV trigger -2.2% vs. 3.8%, other -11.9% vs. 13.0%. Single procedure 12-month freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter-recurrence was 63.3% (76/120) vs. 59.0% (72/122) in the FIRM and Conventional arms (P = 0.3503). Efficacy was similar in the paroxysmal and persistent AF subgroups (P = 0.22 and P = 0.48). The 10-day and 12-month safety endpoints were achieved in 93.3% vs. 93.8% (P = 0.89) and 88.4% vs. 93.4% (P = 0.22) in the FIRM and Conventional arms, respectively. Conclusions: In REDO-FIRM, as compared to standard ablation, FIRM-guided ablation did not provide additional efficacy in redo ablation procedures, but FIRM-guided ablation was equally safe. Additional studies are necessary to identify any potential population able to benefit from FIRM-guided ablation.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.identifier.citationSpitzer SG, Miller JM, Sommer P, et al. Randomized evaluation of redo ablation procedures of atrial fibrillation with focal impulse and rotor modulation-guided procedures: the REDO-FIRM study. Europace. 2023;25(1):74-82. doi:10.1093/europace/euac122
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/37274
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.relation.isversionof10.1093/europace/euac122
dc.relation.journalEuropace
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcePMC
dc.subjectFocal impulse
dc.subjectRotor modulation
dc.subjectRecurrent AF
dc.subjectRotor
dc.titleRandomized evaluation of redo ablation procedures of atrial fibrillation with focal impulse and rotor modulation-guided procedures: the REDO-FIRM study
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
euac122.pdf
Size:
262.23 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: