Cardiac Catheter Ablation and Radioablation

Number: 0165

Policy

Aetna considers cardiac catheter ablation procedures medically necessary for any of the following arrhythmias:

  1. Atrial tachyarrhythmias

    - In members who meet any of the following:

    • Members resuscitated from sudden cardiac death due to atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response in the absence of an accessory pathway; or
    • Members with a dual-chamber pacemaker and pacemaker-mediated tachycardia that cannot be treated effectively by drugs or by re-programming the pacemaker; or
    • Members with symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias such as those above but when drugs are not tolerated or the member does not wish to take them, even though the ventricular rate can be controlled; or
    • Members with symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias who have inadequately controlled ventricular rates; or
    • Members with symptomatic non-paroxysmal junctional tachycardia that is drug-resistant, drugs are not tolerated, or the member does not wish to take them. 
  2. Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT)

    - In members who meet any of the following:

    • Members with sustained AVNRT identified during electrophysiological study or catheter ablation of another arrhythmia; or
    • Members with symptomatic sustained AVNRT that is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy; or
    • The finding of dual atrio-ventricular (AV) nodal pathway physiology and atrial echoes but without AVNRT during electrophysiological study in members suspected of having AVNRT clinically.
  3. Atrial tachycardia, flutter, and fibrillation

    - In members who meet any of the following:

    • Members with atrial fibrillation and evidence of a localized site(s) of origin when the tachycardia is drug-resistant or the member is drug- intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy  (e.g., pulmonary vein isolation procedures); or
    • Members with atrial flutter that is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy; or
    • Members with atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia associated with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation when the tachycardia is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy; or
    • Members with atrial tachycardia that is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy. 
  4. Accessory pathways (including Wolfe-Parkinson-White [WPW])

    - In members who meet any of the following:

    • Asymptomatic members with ventricular pre-excitation whose livelihood or profession, important activities, insurability, or mental well being or the public safety would be affected by spontaneous tachyarrhythmias or the presence of the electrocardiographic abnormality; or
    • Members with a family history of sudden cardiac death; or
    • Members with atrial fibrillation (or other atrial tachyarrhythmias) and a rapid ventricular response via the accessory pathway when the tachycardia is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy; or
    • Members with atrial fibrillation and a controlled ventricular response via the accessory pathway; or
    • Members with AV reentrant tachycardia or atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rates identified during electrophysiological study of another arrhythmia; or
    • Members with symptomatic AV reentrant tachycardia that is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy.
  5. Ventricular tachycardia (VT)

    - In members who meet any of the following:

    • Members with bundle branch reentrant ventricular tachycardia; or
    • Members with sustained monomorphic VT and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) who are receiving multiple shocks not manageable by re-programming or concomitant drug therapy; or
    • Members with symptomatic sustained monomorphic VT when the tachycardia is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy; or
    • Non-sustained VT that is symptomatic when the tachycardia is drug-resistant or the member is drug-intolerant or does not desire long-term drug therapy.
  6. Operative Ablation

    Aetna considers operative ablation medically necessary.  This procedure may be used to eliminate AV condition defects.  The procedure is performed through an incision to ablate (destroy) the arrhythmic area of the heart.

Aetna considers cardiac catheter ablation procedures experimental and investigational for all other indications, including any of the following arrhythmias, as there is insufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed medical literature of the effectiveness of cardiac catheter ablation for these indications:

  • Benign non-sustained VT that does not cause symptoms; or
  • Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; or 
  • Multifocal atrial tachycardia (MAT); or
  • Other uses of radiofrequency catheter ablation not indicated above (e.g., AV junction ablation in combination with pacemaker implantation for symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation); or
  • Unstable, rapid, multiple or polymorphic VT that can not be adequately localized by mapping techniques.

Aetna considers intra-myocardial infusion-needle catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia experimental and investigational because its effectiveness has not been established.

Aetna considers non-invasive cardiac radioablation for the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias (e.g., atrial fibrillation (AF) and VT) experimental and investigational because the safety and effectiveness of this approach has not been established.

Aetna considers alcohol ablation of vein of Marshall experimental and investigational for the treatment of paroxysmal / persistent atrial fibrillation or peri-mitral flutter because the safety and effectiveness of this approach has not been established.

Notes For members who undergo an electrophysiology study on the same day as an ablation, an electrophysiologic study is considered medically necessary if no prior electrophysiology study has been performed within the previous 3 months.  Two electrophysiologists are required to perform the ablation -- 1 to manipulate the catheters, and the other to guide the precise location for the ablation utilizing electrogram analysis and pacing.  The procedure includes temporary pacemaker placement if indicated.  When ablation of the His-bundle is indicated, a permanent pacemaker will always be placed because the ablation has caused a complete heart block. 

Notes: The use of the CARTO system (an intra-cardiac electrophysiological 3-D mapping system) is considered medically necessary for guiding radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of arrhythmias.

See also CPB 0225 - Maze Procedure.

Background

Catheter ablation is a therapeutic technique using a tripolar electrode catheter to eliminate conduction defects, which cause tachycardia.  This technique involves a high level of current, which is channeled through a catheter to destroy the arrhythmic area of the heart.  It treats supraventricular tachycardia by ablating or modulating the atrio-ventricular (AV) node or ablating accessory conduction pathways; it treats ventricular tachycardia by ablating the arrhythmogenic focus (as an alternative to open heart surgical techniques).  Catheter ablation is an acceptable alternative to long-term drug therapy.  The role of catheter ablation as primary therapy for several arrhythmias has been described in position papers or technology assessments by the American Medical Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology.

Bradley and Shen (2007) stated that non-randomized studies suggested that AV junction ablation and pacemaker implantation may improve quality of life, ejection fraction, and exercise tolerance in patients with symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation.  These researchers examined if recent randomized trials support the use of AV junction ablation in combination with conventional right ventricular pacemaker therapy or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in atrial fibrillation.  They performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing AV junction ablation versus drugs or CRT versus right ventricular pacing for atrial fibrillation.  Six randomized trials with 323 patients compared AV junction ablation versus pharmacotherapy were included.  The majority of these trials did not individually report a statistically significant improvement in survival, stroke, hospitalization, functional class, atrial fibrillation-associated symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity, healthcare costs, or quality of life.  Overall, all-cause mortality was 3.5 % for AV junction ablation patients and 3.3 % for controls (relative risk 1.18, 99 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26 to 5.22).  Three randomized trials with 347 patients compared CRT versus right ventricular pacing in atrial fibrillation.  These trials did not individually report a statistically significant improvement in survival, stroke, hospitalization, exercise capacity, or healthcare costs.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a statistically significant improvement in ejection fraction in 2 of the 3 trials.  Overall, CRT was associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality relative to controls (relative risk 0.51, 99 % CI: 0.22 to 1.16).  All-cause mortality was 7.1 % for CRT patients and 14 % for controls.  The authors concluded that limited randomized trial data have been published regarding AV junction ablation in combination with conventional pacemaker therapy or CRT for atrial fibrillation.  They stated that large-scale randomized trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of these therapies.

Khan and associates (2008) stated that pulmonary-vein (PV) isolation (ablation) is increasingly being used to treat atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.  In this prospective, multi-center clinical trial, these investigators randomly assigned patients with symptomatic, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation, an ejection fraction of 40 % or less, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure to undergo either PV isolation or AV-node ablation with biventricular pacing.  All patients completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (scores range of 0 to 105, with a higher score indicating a worse quality of life) and underwent echocardiography and a 6-min walk test (the composite primary end point).  Over a 6-month period, patients were monitored for both symptomatic and asymptomatic episodes of atrial fibrillation.  A total of 41 patients underwent PV isolation, and 40 underwent AV-node ablation with bi-ventricular pacing; none was lost to follow-up at 6 months.  The composite primary end point favored the group that underwent PV isolation, with an improved questionnaire score at 6 months (60 versus 82 in the group that underwent AV-node ablation with bi-ventricular pacing; p < 0.001), a longer 6-min walk test (340 m vsersus 297 m, p < 0.001), and a higher ejection fraction (35 % versus 28 %, p < 0.001).  In the group that underwent PV isolation, 88 % of patients receiving anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) and 71 % of those not receiving such drugs were free of atrial fibrillation at 6 months.  In the group that underwent PV isolation, PV stenosis developed in 2 patients, peri-cardial effusion in 1, and pulmonary edema in another; in the group that underwent AV-node ablation with biventricular pacing, lead dislodgment was found in 1 patient and pneumothorax in another.  The authors concluded that PV isolation was superior to AV-node ablation with bi-ventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who had drug-refractory atrial fibrillation.

Rottlaender et al (2009) stated that cryothermal ablation is a new method in cardiac electrophysiology for the percutaneous catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias.  Cryothermal mapping allows functional evaluation of a particular site prior to ablation.  Thus, the targeted tissue may be confirmed as safe for ablation.  This approach is useful in high-risk ablations (e.g., next to the AV node).  In cryothermal ablation, pressurized liquid nitrogen is delivered to the tip of the ablation catheter; cooling of the tip is temperature-controlled.  Cryothermal balloons are also available, in addition to standard cryothermal catheters, for the isolation of pulmonary veins.  The tissue freezing provides high catheter stability.  Cryothermal lesions have a similar depth to radiofrequency energy, but area and volume of the lesions are reduced.  Furthermore, they are well demarkated and the incidence of thrombus-formation is reduced.  Cryothermal ablation has been evaluated for the treatment of AVNRT, accessory pathways, atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia (VT) originating in the right ventricular outflow tract.  Current experience indicates that the method safe and painless.  However, its use seems to be limited by a longer ablation time and lower efficacy.  The authors stated that further studies evaluating long-term success of cryothermal ablation are needed.  For high-risk ablations, cryothermal energy is helpful and should be used for para-Hisian accessory pathways and difficult cases of AVNRT.  It has a widely demonstrated safety profile.  The clinical efficacy will have to be evaluated in further studies.

Furthermore, in a review on new technologies in atrial fibrillation ablation, Burkhardt and Natale (2009) stated that cryoablation therapy may not be as durable as radiofrequency, as observed in some studies of supraventricular tachycardia ablation.  At this point, balloon-based ablation systems (cryoablation, laser, and high-frequency ultrasound) have not been proven to be as effective as current techniques and do not appear to save procedure time.

Computer-based electro-anatomical mapping systems are able to reconstruct cardiac anatomy and provide a straight-forward representation of chamber activation.  These systems capture and display details of intra-cardiac physiology and mark the site of interventions.  Currently, several mapping technologies are available in the electro-physiological laboratories (e.g., the CARTO system, and the EnSite 3000).  Electro-anatomic mapping systems combine 3 important functionalities:
  1. non-fluoroscopic localization of electro-physiological catheters in three-dimensional (3-D) space;
  2. analysis and 3-D display of activation sequences computed from local or calculated electrograms, and 3-D display of electrogram voltage ("scar tissue"); and
  3. integration of this "electro-anatomic" information with non-invasive images of the heart (mainly computed tomography or magnetic resonance images). 

Although better understanding and ablation of complex arrhythmias mostly relies on the 3-D integration of catheter localization and electrogram-based information to illustrate re-entrant circuits or areas of focal initiation of arrhythmias, the use of electro-anatomic mapping systems in atrial fibrillation is currently based on integration of anatomic images of the left atrium and non-fluoroscopic visualization of the ablation catheter.  Their use in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is mainly driven by safety considerations such as shorter fluoroscopy and procedure times, or visualization of cardiac (pulmonary veins) and extra-cardiac (esophagus) structures that need to be protected during the procedure (Knackstedt et al, 2008).

Liu and colleagues (2005) evaluated the characteristics of the CARTO system and the Ensite/NavX system and compared them on the aspects of procedural parameters and clinical effectiveness.  A total of 75 cases with paroxysmal or chronic symptomatic atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to circumferential pulmonary vein ablation (CPVA) procedure guided by the Ensite/NavX system (group I, n = 40) and by the CARTO system (group II, n = 35).  After successful trans-septal procedure, the geometry of left atrium was created under the guidance of the 2 systems.  Radiofrequency energy was applied to circumferentially ablate tissues out of pulmonary veins' (PVs') ostia.  In cases with chronic atrial fibrillation, linear ablation was applied to modify the substrate of left atrium (LA).  The endpoint of the procedure was complete PVs isolation.  Seventy-five cases underwent the procedure successfully.  The total procedure and fluoroscopic durations in group II were significantly shorter than in group I [(150 +/- 23) mins and (18 +/- 17) mins versus (170 +/- 34) mins and (25 +/- 16) mins, p = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively].  There was no significant difference in the fluoroscopic and procedure durations for geometry creation between group I and group II [(8 +/- 4) mins and (16 +/- 11) mins versus (5 +/- 4) mins and (14 +/- 8) mins, respectively].  The fluoroscopic durations for CPVA were (15 +/- 5) mins in group I versus (10 +/- 6) mins in group II (p = 0.05), and the CPVA procedural durations were significantly shorter in group II than in group I [(18 +/- 11) mins versus (25 +/- 10) mins, p = 0.04].  Atrial fibrillation was terminated by radiofrequency delivery in 14 cases (35 %) in group I versus 5 cases (14 %) in group II (p = 0.035).  After CPVA, complete PV isolation was attained in 26 cases (65 %) in group I versus 11 cases (31 %) in group II (p = 0.004).  During a mean follow-up of 7 months, 32 (80 %) cases in group I and 24 (69 %) cases in group II were arrhythmia-free (p = 0.06).  One case developed peri-cardium effusion and another case was found to have intestinal artery thrombosis in group II.  One case had moderate hemothorax in group I.  All the complications were cured by proper treatment.  No PV stenosis was observed.  The authors concluded that the CPVA procedure for atrial fibrillation is safe and effective.  Although there is difference between the CARTO system and the Ensite/NavX system, the CPVA procedure guided by either of them yields similar clinical results.

Suleiman et al (2007) reported the early and late outcome in patients with different arrhythmias treated with radiofrequency ablation combined with the CARTO mapping and navigation system.  The study cohort comprised 125 consecutive patients with different cardiac arrhythmias referred for mapping and/or ablation procedures using the CARTO system.  Forty patients (32 %) had previous failed conventional ablation or mapping procedures and were referred by other centers.  The arrhythmia included atrial fibrillation (n = 13), atrial flutter (n = 38), atrial tachycardia (n = 25), ventricular tachycardia (n = 24), arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (n = 9), and supra-ventricular tachycardia (n = 16).  During the study period, a total of 125 patients (mean age of 49 +/- 19 years, 59 % males) underwent electro-physiological study and electro-anatomic mapping of the heart chambers.  Supra-ventricular arrhythmias were identified in 92 patients (73 %) and ventricular arrhythmias in 33 (27 %).  Acute and late success rates, defined as termination of the arrhythmia without anti-arrhythmic drugs, were 87 % and 76 % respectively.  One patient (0.8 %) developed a clinically significant complication.  The authors concluded that the CARTO system increased the safety, efficacy and efficiency of radiofrequency ablation.

Hindricks et al (2009) stated that radiofrequency catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter is one of the most frequent indications for catheter ablation in electrophysiology laboratories today.  Clinical utility of electro-anatomic mapping systems on treatment results and resource utilization compared with conventional ablation has not been systematically investigated in a prospective multi-center study.  In this prospective, randomized multi-center study, the findings of catheter ablation to cure typical atrial flutter using conventional ablation strategy were compared with electro-anatomically guided mapping and ablation (using the CARTO system).  Primary endpoints of the study were procedure duration and fluoroscopy exposure time, secondary endpoints were acute success rate, recurrence rate, and resource utilization.  A total of 210 patients (169 men, 41 women, mean age of 63 +/- 10 years) with documented typical atrial flutter were included in the study.  Acute ablation success, that is, demonstration of bi-directional isthmus block, was achieved in 99 of 105 patients (94 %) in the electro-anatomically guided ablation group and in 102 of 105 patients (97 %) in the conventional ablation group (p > 0.05).  Total procedure duration was comparable between both study groups (99 +/- 57 mins versus 88 +/- 54 mins, p > 0.05).  Fluoroscopy exposure time was significantly shorter in the electro-anatomically guided ablation group (7.7 +/- 7.3 mins versus 14.8 +/- 11.9 mins; p < 0.05).  Total recurrence rate of typical atrial flutter at 6 months of follow-up was comparable between the 2 groups (respectively for the CARTO and conventional group 6.6 % versus 5.7 %, p > 0.05).  The material costs per procedure in the electro-anatomically guided and conventional groups (NaviStar DS versus Celsius DS) was 3035 Euro (USD 3,870) and 2133 Euro (USD 2,720), respectively.  The authors conclued that this multi-center study documented that cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation to cure typical atrial flutter was highly effective and safe, both in the conventional and the electro-anatomically guided ablation group.  The use of electro-anatomical mapping system significantly reduced the fluoroscopy exposure time by almost 50 %, however, at the expense of increased cost of the procedure.

Suleiman et al (2007) noted that catheter ablation is assuming a larger role in the management of patients with cardiac arrhythmias.  Conventional fluoroscopic catheter mapping has limited spatial resolution and involves prolonged fluoroscopy.  The non-fluoroscopic electro-anatomic mapping technique (CARTO) has been developed to overcome these drawbacks.  These researchers reported the early and late outcome in patients with different arrhythmias treated with radiofrequency ablation combined with the CARTO mapping and navigation system.  The study cohort comprised 125 consecutive patients with different cardiac arrhythmias referred to our center from January 1999 to July 2005 for mapping and/or ablation procedures using the CARTO system.  Forty patients (32 %) had previous failed conventional ablation or mapping procedures and were referred by other centers.  The arrhythmia included atrial fibrillation (n = 13), atrial flutter (n = 38), atrial tachycardia (n = 25), ventricular tachycardia (n = 24), arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (n = 9), and supraventricular tachycardia (n = 16).  During the study period, a total of 125 patients (mean age of 49 +/- 19 years, 59 % males) underwent electrophysiological study and electro-anatomic mapping of the heart chambers.  Supraventricular arrhythmias were identified in 92 patients (73 %) and ventricular arrhythmias in 33 (27%).  Acute and late success rates, defined as termination of the arrhythmia without anti-arrhythmic drugs, were 87 % and 76 % respectively.  One patient (0.8 %) developed a clinically significant complication.  The authors concluded that the CARTO system advances the understanding of arrhythmias, and increases the safety, efficacy and efficiency of radiofrequency ablation.

Colín Lizalde Lde (2007) stated that in 1992 the radiofrequency ablation program was started, with very good results in patients with supraventricular tachycardias and normal hearts or minimal structural defects.  Nevertheless, the results are not as good for the patients with structural defects, which are actually seen more frequently, those are cases with more complex arrhythmias, are patients with cardiac surgery that show a complex arrhythmogenic substrate or patients previously treated with conventional ablation which tachycardia recurs.  In these cases, the electro-anatomic CARTO system has been very useful.  In the last 2 years, 74 procedures with the CARTO system were performed, of which 56 have been supraventricular arrhythmias, improving substantially the success rates.  The authors concluded that the electro-anatomical mapping allowed the more accurate identification of the arrhythmogenic substrate, achieving better success rates in recurrent tachycardia after conventional ablation, or in cases with more complex arrhythmogenic substrates.

Wu et al (2013) examined acute and long-term outcome after catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia in patients after the Mustard or Senning operation for D-transposition of the great arteries.  This single-center retrospective analysis included 26 patients (mean age of 28.7 ± 6.7 years, 8 females) after Mustard (n = 15) or Senning (n = 11) operation who underwent catheter ablation for intra-atrial re-entrant tachycardia (IART) or AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from January 2004 to May 2011.  The electrophysiological studies were performed using a 3-D mapping system (CARTO).  Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) was available since 2008.  Follow-up on an out-patient basis was conducted 3, 6, and 12 months after ablation and yearly thereafter.  In the 26 patients, 34 procedures were performed (1 procedure n = 19; 2 procedures, n = 6; and 3 procedures, n = 1).  Overall, 34 tachycardia forms (IART n = 30; AVNRT n = 4) were ablated manually (n = 25) or by RMN (n = 9).  Acute success reached in 29/34 forms (85.3 %).  Mean fluoroscopy time (FT) was 28.2 ± 20.7 mins and mean procedure duration (PD) was 290.9 ± 107.6 mins.  After a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 24.5 months, 25/26 (96.2 %) patients were free from IART or AVNRT.  In the 9 RMN ablations (mean follow-up of 14.2 ± 5.8 months) acute and long-term success was 100 %.  Fluoroscopy time and PD were significantly reduced using RMN compared with manual ablation (11.9 ± 6.2 versus 34.6 ± 20.6 mins, 225.7 ± 24.1 versus 312 ± 118.2 mins, p = 0.02).  The authors concluded that catheter ablation of IART or AVNRT in patients post-Mustard/Senning operation for D-transposition of the great arteries (d-TGA) has a high acute success rate.  The recurrence rate for IART is about 30 %; however, after a second ablation, long-term results are excellent.  They stated that remote magnetic navigation seems to improve single-procedure acute and long-term success and significantly reduces FT and PD.

Svintsova et al (2013) stated that the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in infants and small children remains controversial.  The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RFA in critically ill small children (less than 1 year of age) with drug-resistant tachycardia accompanied by arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy and heart failure.  The study included 15 patients age 5.3 ± 3.7 months.  Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome and atrial tachycardia were detected in 8 (53.3 %) and 7 (46.7 %) of patients, respectively.  Patients with structural heart pathology, including congenital heart diseases and laboratory-confirmed myocarditis, were excluded from the study.  Indications for RFA included drug-refractory SVT accompanied by arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy and heart failure.  Unsuccessful ablation was observed in 2 1-month-old patients who underwent successful ablation 3 months later.  The follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 8 years (average of 3.9 years). Only 1 patient (6.7 %) had tachycardia recurrence 1 month after RFA.  The short- and long-term RFA success rates were 86.7 and 93.3 %, respectively.  The study did not show any procedure-related complications.  Heart failure disappeared within 5 to 7 days.  Complete normalization of heart chamber sizes was documented within 1 month after effective RFA.  A 3-D CARTO system (Biosense Webster, Inc.,) was used in 3 patients with body weight greater than 7 kg.  The use of the CARTO system resulted in a remarkable decrease of the fluoroscopy time without vascular injury or other procedure-related complications in all cases.  The authors concluded these findings suggested that RFA may be considered the method of choice for SVT treatment in small children when drug therapy is ineffective and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy progresses.

Spar et al (2013) noted that traditional imaging for ablation of supraventricular tachycardia has been fluoroscopy, although 3-D electro-anatomic mapping (3D) has been demonstrated to reduce radiation exposure.  This study compared a technique for the reduction of radiation, low-dose fluoroscopy (LD), with standard-dose fluoroscopy (SD) and 3D with SD (3D-SD).  This was a single institutional retrospective cohort study.  All patients undergoing initial ablation for AV reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) or AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from 2009 to 2012 were reviewed and divided into 3 groups:
  1. SD,
  2. 3D (CARTO or NavX) with SD, or
  3. LD. 

LD uses the same equipment as SD but included customized changes to the manufacturer's lowest settings by decreasing the requested dose to the detector.  Primary outcomes were fluoroscopy time and dose area product exposure.  A total of 181 patients were included.  The median age was 15.0 years (3.3 to 20.8); 59 % had AVRT, 35 % had AVNRT, and 6 % had both AVRT and AVNRT.  LD decreased the dose area product (DAP) compared with SD (637.0 versus 960.1 cGy*cm², p = 0.01) with no difference in fluoroscopy time.  3D-SD decreased fluoroscopy time compared with SD (9.9 versus 18.3 minutes, p <0.001) with DAP of 570.1.0 versus 960.1 cGy*cm² (p = 0.16).  LD and 3D-SD had comparable DAP (637.0 versus 570.1 cGy*cm², p = 0.67), even though LD had significantly longer fluoroscopy time (19.9 versus 9.9 minutes, p <0.001).  The authors concluded that LD during catheter ablation of AVRT and AVNRT significantly reduced the DAP compared with SD and had similar radiation exposure compared with 3D with SD.

Pass et al (2015) noted that “ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable" protocols reduce patient radiation dose.  Addition of electro-anatomical mapping may further reduce dose.  From 6/11 to 4/12, a novel ALARA protocol was utilized for all patients undergoing supraventricular tachycardia ablation, including low frame rates (2 to 3 frames/second), low fluoro dose/frame (6 to 18 nGy/frame), and other techniques to reduce fluoroscopy (ALARA).  From 6/12 to 3/13, use of CARTO® 3 (C3) with "fast anatomical mapping" (ALARA+C3) was added to the ALARA protocol.  Intra-vascular echo was not utilized.  Demographics, procedural, and radiation data were analyzed and compared between the 2 protocols.  A total of 75 patients were included: 42 ALARA patients, and 33 ALARA+C3 patients.  Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups.  The acute success rate in ALARA was 95 %, and 100 % in ALARA + C3; no catheterization-related complications were observed.  Procedural time was 125.7 minutes in the ALARA group versus 131.4 in ALARA+C3 (p = 0.36).  Radiation doses were significantly lower in the ALARA + C3 group with a mean air Kerma in ALARA + C3 of 13.1 ± 28.3 mGy (SD) compared with 93.8 ± 112 mGy in ALARA (p < 0.001).  Mean dose area product was 92.2 ± 179 uGym2 in ALARA + C3 compared with 584 ± 687 uGym2 in ALARA (p < 0.001).  Of the 33 subjects (42 %) in the ALARA + C3 group, 14 received less than or equal to 1 mGy exposure.  The ALARA + C3 dosages are the lowest reported for a combined electroanatomical-fluoroscopy technique.  The authors concluded that addition of CARTO® 3 to ALARA protocols markedly reduced radiation exposure to young people undergoing supraventricular tachycardia ablation while allowing for equivalent procedural efficacy and safety.

American College of Cardiology guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (Zipes, et al., 2006) state that 3-dimensional mapping systems permit anatomical reconstructions and correlation of EP characteristics with anatomy. These systems have led to an approach whereby circuits can be mapped during sinus rhythm and can facilitate ablation in the ischemic patient who often does not tolerate VT well. Use of these techniques may result in better long-term success rates. American College of Cardiology guidelines on supraventricular arrhythmias (Blomström-Lundqvist, et al., 2003) state that, in patients with prior surgical repair, both CTI-dependent and non–CTI-dependent (so-called “incisional” or scar) atrial flutter occur and can coexist in a single patient. If catheter ablation is warranted… ablation may be best performed in an experienced center with advanced, three-dimensional mapping equipment for defining non-CTI- dependent arrhythmias. Heart Rhythm Society guidelines on atrial fibrillation (Calkins, et al., 2012) state that it is well known that mapping and ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) require accurate navigation in the LA. This can be obtained using standard fluoroscopy or more commonly with electroanatomic mapping systems that combine anatomic and electrical information by a catheter point-by-point mapping, allowing an accurate anatomic reconstruction of a 3D shell of the targeted cardiac chamber. The use of these 3D mapping systems has been demonstrated to reduce fluoroscopy duration.

Lawrenz and colleagues (2011) examined the safety and effectiveness of endocardial radiofrequency ablation of septal hypertrophy (ERASH) for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient reduction in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM).  A total of 19 patients with HOCM were enrolled; in 9 patients, the left ventricular septum was ablated, and in 10 patients, the right ventricular septum was ablated.  Follow-up examinations (echocardiography, 6-min walk test, bicycle ergometry) were performed 3 days and 6 months after ERASH.  After 31.2 +/- 10 radiofrequency pulses, a significant and sustained LVOT gradient reduction could be achieved (62 % reduction of resting gradients and 60 % reduction of provoked gradients, p = 0.0001).  The 6-min walking distance increased significantly from 412.9 +/- 129 m to 471.2 +/- 139 m after 6 months, p = 0.019); and New York Heart Association functional class was improved from 3.0 +/- 0.0 to 1.6 +/- 0.7 (p = 0.0001).  Complete AV block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation occurred in 4 patients (21 %); 1 patient had cardiac tamponade.  The authors concluded that ERASH is a new therapeutic option in the treatment of HOCM, allowing significant and sustained reduction of the LVOT gradient as well as symptomatic improvement with acceptable safety by inducing a discrete septal contraction disorder.  They stated that ERASH may be suitable for patients not amenable to transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy or myectomy.  The drawbacks of this study included the lack of a control group, small sample size and short-term follow-up.  These findings need to be validated by more research.

Sreeram et al (2011) evaluated the effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) in the treatment of HOCM in children.  In 32 children, at a median age of 11.1 (range of 2.9 to 17.5) years and weight of 31 (15 to 68) kg, ablation of the hypertrophied septum was performed using a cool-tip ablation catheter via a femoral arterial approach.  The median number of lesions was 27 (10 to 63) and fluoroscopic time was 24 (12 to 60) mins.  The majority of patients showed an immediate decrease in the catheter pullback gradient (mean 78.5 +/- 26.2 mm Hg pre-RFCA versus mean 36.1 +/- 16.5 mm Hg post-RFCA, p < 0.01) and a further reduction in the Doppler echocardiographic gradient (mean 96.9 +/- 27.0 mm Hg pre-RFCA versus 32.7 +/- 27.1 mm Hg post-RFCA, p < 0.01) at follow-up.  One patient died due to a paradoxical increase in left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and another had persistent AV block that required permanent pacing.  Six patients required further procedures (surgery, pacing, or further RFCA) during a median follow-up of 48 (3 to 144) months.  The authors concluded that these preliminary findings of RFCA for septal reduction in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are promising and merit further evaluation.

McLellan et al (2013) noted that pulmonary vein reconnection is a major limitation of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for symptomatic AF.  Adenosine (ADO) may unmask dormant PV conduction and facilitate consolidation of PV isolation.  These investigators performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the impact of routine ADO administration on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PVI.  References and electronic databases reporting AF ablation and ADO following PVI were searched through to July 31, 2012.  A total of 6 studies included 544 patients to assess the impact of catheter ablation to target ADO-induced PV reconnection on AF ablation outcome and 3 studies included 612 patients to assess the impact of ADO testing on AF ablation outcome.  Relative risks were calculated and combined in a meta-analysis using random effects modeling.  Routine ADO testing for PV reconnection with additional targeted ablation resulted in a significant increase in freedom from AF post-PVI (risk ration [RR] 1.25; 95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.40; p < 0.001).  However, within the group of patients undergoing ADO testing, those with reconnection identified a population with a trend to reduction in freedom from AF despite the use of further targeted ablation in the reconnection group (RR 0.91 with 95 % CI: 0.81 to 1.03; p = 0.15).  The authors concluded that routine ADO testing is associated with an improvement in freedom from AF post-PVI.  Paradoxically acute ADO-induced PV reconnection may portend a greater likelihood of AF recurrence despite additional ablation.  The authors stated that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to determine the role of ADO testing post-PVI.

Macle et al (2012) stated that PVI has emerged as an effective therapy for paroxysmal AF.  However, AF recurs in up to 50 % of patients, generally because of recovery of PV conduction.  Adenosine given during the initial procedure may reveal dormant PV conduction, thereby identifying the need for additional ablation, leading to improved outcomes.  The Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination (ADVICE) study is a prospective multi-center RCT assessing the impact of ADO-guided PVI in preventing AF recurrences.  Patients undergoing a first PVI procedure for paroxysmal AF will be recruited.  After standard PVI is completed, all patients will receive intravenous ADO in an attempt to unmask dormant conduction.  If dormant conduction is elicited, patients will be randomized to no further ablation (control group) or additional ADO-guided ablation until dormant conduction is abolished.  If no dormant conduction is revealed, randomly selected patients will be followed in a registry.  The primary outcome is time to first documented symptomatic AF recurrence.  Assuming that dormant conduction is present in 50 % of patients post-PVI and symptomatic AF recurs in 45 % of controls, 244 patients with dormant conduction will be needed to obtain greater than 90 % power to detect a difference of 20 %.  Thus, a total of 488 patients will be enrolled and followed for 12 months.  The authors concluded that the ADVICE trial will examine if a PVI strategy incorporating elimination of dormant conduction unmasked by intravenous ADO will decrease the rate of recurrent symptomatic AF compared with standard PVI.

Cheung et al (2013) noted that ADO can unmask dormant pulmonary vein conduction following PVI.  Adenosine can also induce ectopy in electrically silent PVs following isolation, possibly via activation of autonomic triggers.  These researchers sought to identify the implications of ADO-induced PV ectopy for AF recurrence following PVI.  A total of 152 patients (age of 60 ± 11 years; 63 % paroxysmal AF) undergoing PVI for AF were studied.  After each PV was isolated, ADO was administered and the presence of ADO-induced PV reconnection and PV ectopy were recorded.  Dormant conduction was targeted with additional ablation.  Adenosine-induced PV ectopy was seen in 45 (30 %) patients and dormant conduction was seen in 44 (29 %) patients.  After a median follow-up of 374 days, 48 (32 %) patients had recurrent AF after a single ablation procedure.  Rates of freedom from AF among patients with ADO-induced PV ectopy were significantly lower than patients without ADO-induced PV ectopy (63 % versus 76 % at 1 year; log rank = 0.014).  Rates of freedom from AF among patients with dormant conduction were also lower than patients without dormant conduction (64 % versus 76 % at 1 year; log rank = 0.062).  With multi-variate analysis, ADO-induced PV ectopy was found to be the only independent predictor of AF after PVI (HR 1.90; 95 % CI: 1.06 to 3.40; p = 0.032).  The authors concluded that ADO-induced PV ectopy is a predictor of recurrent AF following PVI and may be a marker of increased susceptibility to autonomic triggers of AF.

Morales et al (2013) examined if dormant conduction across the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) may be revealed by ADO after ablation-induced bi-directional block, and its association with recurrent flutter.  Patients undergoing catheter ablation for CTI-dependent flutter were prospectively studied.  After confirming bi-directional block across the CTI by standard pacing maneuvers, ADO (greater than or equal to 12 mg IV) was administered to assess resumption of conduction, followed by isoproterenol (ISP) bolus.  Further CTI ablation was performed for persistent (but not transient) resumption of conduction.  Bi-directional block across the CTI was achieved in all 81 patients (63 males), age of 61.2 ± 11.0 years.  The trans-CTI time increased from 71.9 ± 18.1 milliseconds pre-ablation to 166.2 ± 26.4 milliseconds post=ablation.  Adenosine elicited resumption of conduction across the CTI in 7 patients (8.6 %), 2 of whom had transient recovery.  No additional patient with dormant conduction was identified by ISP.  Over a follow-up of 11.8 ± 8.0 months, atrial flutter recurred in 4 (4.9 %) patients, 3/7 (42.9 %) with a positive ADO challenge versus 1/74 (1.3 %) with a negative response, p = 0.0016 (relative risk: 31.7).  The authors concluded that ADO challenge following atrial flutter ablation provoked transient or persistent resumption of conduction across the CTI in almost 9 % of patients and identified a subgroup at higher risk of flutter recurrence.  Moreover, they state that it remains to be determined whether additional ablation guided by ADO testing during the index procedure may further improve procedural outcomes.

Sapp and colleagues (2013) stated that ablation of VT is sometimes unsuccessful when ablation lesions are of insufficient depth to reach arrhythmogenic substrate.  These researchers reported the initial experience with the use of a catheter with an extendable/retractable irrigated needle at the tip capable of intra-myocardial mapping and ablation.  Sequential consenting patients with recurrent VT underwent ablation with the use of a needle-tipped catheter.  At target sites, the needle was advanced 7 to 9 mm into the myocardium, permitting pacing and recording.  Infusion of saline/iodinated contrast mixture excluded perforation and ensured intra-myocardial deployment.  Further infusion was delivered before and during temperature-controlled RF energy delivery through the needle.  All 8 patients included (6 males; mean age of 54 years) with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 29 % were refractory to multiple anti-arrhythmic drugs, and 1 to 4 previous catheter ablation attempts (epicardial in 4) had failed.  Patients had 1 to 7 (median of 2) VTs present or inducible; 2 were incessant.  Some intra-myocardial VT mapping was possible in 7 patients.  A mean of 22 (limits of 3 to 48) needle ablation lesions were applied in 8 patients.  All patients had at least 1 VT terminated or rendered non-inducible.  During a median of 12 months follow-up, 4 patients were free of recurrent VT, and 3 patients were improved, but had new VTs occur at some point during follow-up.  Two died of the progression of pre-existing heart failure without recurrent VT.  Complications included tamponade in 1 patient and heart block in 2 patients.  The authors concluded that intra-myocardial infusion-needle catheter ablation is feasible and permits control of some VTs that have been refractory to conventional catheter ablation therapy, warranting further study.

Asakai et al (2015) noted that since the introduction of transcatheter ablation in the late 1980s, there has been significant technical development.  With a very high success rate and low complication rate, ablation has now become the standard of care in children and adults.  However, long-term data remain insufficient and the application of ablation therapy in small children is debatable.  These investigators reviewed current treatment strategies and results in toddlers and infants.  There has been improvement in success rate and complication rate for ablation in small children.  The authors concluded that technological advancements in non-fluoroscopic electro-anatomical mapping systems (3D systems) have led to the reduction of radiation and have facilitated ablations in complex cases; however, long-term effects of ablation lesions in small children remain a potential concern.

Hakalahti et al (2015) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to r evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RFA versus AADs.  Five databases were searched for RCTs comparing RFA and AAD therapy as first-line treatment of AF in August 2014.  A total of 3 studies with 491 patients with recurrent symptomatic AF were included.  The patients were relatively young and the majority of them had paroxysmal AF (98.7 %) and no major co-morbidity.  Radiofrequency catheter ablation was associated with significantly higher freedom from AF recurrence compared with AAD therapy [RR 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.44 to 0.92, p = 0.02].  The difference in the rate of symptomatic AF recurrences was not statistically significant (RR 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.30 to 1.08, p = 0.09).  There was 1 procedure-related death and 7 tamponades with RFA, whereas symptomatic bradycardia was more frequent with AAD therapy.  The authors concluded that RFA appeared to be more effective than medical therapy as first-line treatment of paroxysmal AF in relatively young and otherwise healthy patients, but may also cause more severe adverse effects.  They stated that these findings support the use of RFA as first-line therapy in selected patients, who understand the benefits and risks of the procedure.

Verma et al (2015) noted that catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.  Guidelines suggested that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to PVI is needed in persistent atrial fibrillation.  These researchers randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent AF in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with PVI alone (67 patients), PVI plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or PVI plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients).  The duration of follow-up was 18 months.  The primary end-point was freedom from any documented recurrence of AF lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure.  Procedure time was significantly shorter for PVI alone than for the other 2 procedures (p < 0.001).  After 18 months, 59 % of patients assigned to PVI alone were free from recurrent AF, as compared with 49 % of patients assigned to PVI plus complex electrogram ablation and 46 % of patients assigned to PVI plus linear ablation (p = 0.15).  There were also no significant differences among the 3 groups for the secondary end-points, including freedom from AF after 2 ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia.  Complications included tamponade (3 patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (3 patients), and atrio-esophageal fistula (1 patient).  The authors concluded that among patients with persistent AF, they found no reduction in the rate of recurrent AF when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to PVI.

Non-Invasive Cardiac Radioablation for Cardiac Arrhythmias

Cuculich and colleagues (2017) stated that recent advances have enabled non-invasive mapping of cardiac arrhythmias with electrocardiographic imaging and non-invasive delivery of precise ablative radiation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).  These investigators combined these techniques to perform catheter-free, electrophysiology-guided, non-invasive cardiac radioablation for VT.  They targeted arrhythmogenic scar regions by combining anatomical imaging with non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging during VT that was induced by means of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).  SBRT simulation, planning, and treatments were performed with the use of standard techniques.  Patients were treated with a single fraction of 25 Gy while awake.  Efficacy was assessed by counting episodes of VT, as recorded by ICDs.  Safety was assessed by means of serial cardiac and thoracic imaging.  From April through November 2015, a total of 5 patients with high-risk, refractory VT underwent treatment.  The mean non-invasive ablation time was 14 minutes (range of 11 to 18).  During the 3 months before treatment, the patients had a combined history of 6,577 episodes of VT. During a 6-week post-ablation "blanking period" (when arrhythmias may occur owing to post-ablation inflammation), there were 680 episodes of VT.  After the 6-week blanking period, there were 4 episodes of VT over the next 46 patient-months, for a reduction from baseline of 99.9 %.  A reduction in episodes of VT occurred in all 5 patients.  The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) did not decrease with treatment.  At 3 months, adjacent lung showed opacities consistent with mild inflammatory changes, which had resolved by 1 year.  The authors concluded that in 5 patients with refractory VT, non-invasive treatment with electrophysiology-guided cardiac radioablation markedly reduced the burden of VT.  Moreover, they stated that because of the novelty of non-invasive radioablation, its potential for harm, as well as small number of patients in this study (n = 5), this approach should not be considered to be suitable for clinical use, pending the results of further investigation.  Furthermore, there are well-described late toxic effects of radiotherapy to the heart for large-field fractionated dose treatments, as has been reported in the treatment of lymphoma and breast cancer.  The potential late effects of high-dose SBRT exclusively to focal areas of previously injured heart are unknown.  The volumes of myocardium that were subjected to radiotherapy in these patients (from 17 to 81 ml) were large enough that effects on specialized cardiac structures (papillary muscles, coronary arteries, conduction system, and valves) are of potential concern, as is the risk of overall effects on ventricular function, although no such effects were observed during the 12-month follow-up period in the 4 surviving subjects in this study.  The risk of thromboembolism, as observed in patient 5, warrants cautious consideration.  These researchers have initiated a prospective, phase I/II clinical trial (ENCORE-VT) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SBRT.

Zei and Soltys (2017) noted that stereotactic radioablation is a commonly utilized technology to non-invasively treat solid tumors with precision and efficacy.  Using a robotic arm mounted delivery system, multiple low-dose ionizing radiation beams are delivered from multiple angles, concentrating ablative energy at the target tissue.  Recently, this technology has been evaluated for treatment of cardiac arrhythmias.  These investigators presented the basic underlying principles, proof-of-principle studies, and clinical experience with stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation.  Most recently, stereotactic radioablation has been used to treat a limited number of patients with malignant arrhythmias, including VT and AF.  The authors concluded that given the early stage of evaluation of this technology, more investigation and clinical experience are needed.  They stated that current pre-clinical and clinical experiences have suggested early efficacy and safety; however, additional clinical data under properly designed clinical trials are needed.

Zei and colleagues (2018) noted that stereotactic radioablation (SR), a commonly used therapy to treat malignant tumors, has been used to treat refractory VT, but the feasibility of treating AF with SR is unknown.  These researchers evaluated the safety and efficacy of SR targeting PV antral tissues as a potential therapy for AF.  A total of 17 adult canines and 2 adult swine underwent surgical fiducial marker placement, 3-dimensional anatomic rendering computed tomography angiogram (CTA) of the left atrium, and creation of a treatment plan targeting the right superior PVs; 4 treatment doses (15, 20, 25, and 35 Gy) were administered to 4 cohorts.  Subjects were monitored for 3 to 6 months, followed by electrophysiological testing, gross pathological examination, and histopathology in 2 subjects.  All subjects received SR treatment without complication.  Electrophysiology study and gross pathological analysis demonstrated treatment effect in all treated PVs at 35 Gy and 25 Gy (n = 11 of 11 [100 %]), with a partial effect at 20 Gy (n = 4 of 5 [80 %]; 1 did not undergo repeat electrophysiology study) and 15 Gy (n = 1 of 2 [50 %]).  No evidence of collateral injury was found in tissues directly adjacent to the treated PVs.  In 2 subjects, detailed histopathology showed evidence of circumferential, transmural scar at the PV ablation sites, with sparing of the surrounding structures.  The authors concluded that SR is safe and effective for creating precise circumferential scar and electrical isolation of the right superior PV in an experimental model, with dose dependence between delivered radio-ablative energy and observed electrical effects.

Lydiard and associates (2018) noted that stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) is an emerging treatment option for AF.  However, it faces possibly the most challenging motion compensation scenario: both respiratory and cardiac motion.  Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) tracking is clinically used for lung cancer treatments but its capabilities with intra-cardiac targets is unknown.  These investigators reported the 1st results of MLC tracking for intra-cardiac targets.  Five AF STAR plans of varying complexity were created.  All delivered 5  ×  10 Gy to both PV antra; 3 healthy human target motion trajectories were acquired with ultrasound (US) and programmed into a motion platform.  Plans were delivered with a linac to a dosimeter placed on the motion platform.  For each motion trace, each plan was delivered with no MLC tracking and with MLC tracking with and without motion prediction.  Dosimetric accuracy was assessed with γ-tests and dose metrics; MLC tracking improved the dosimetric accuracy in all measurements compared to non-tracking experiments.  The average 2 %/2 mm γ-failure rate was improved from 13.1 % with no MLC tracking to 5.9 % with MLC tracking (p  <  0.001) and 7.2 % with MLC tracking and no motion prediction (p  <  0.001).  MLC tracking significantly improved the consistency between planned and delivered target dose coverage.  The 95 % target coverage with the prescription dose (V100) was improved from 60 % of deliveries with no MLC tracking to 80 % of deliveries with MLC tracking (p  =  0.03).  MLC tracking was successfully implemented for the first time for intra-cardiac motion compensation.  MLC tracking provided significant dosimetric accuracy improvements in AF STAR experiments, even with challenging cardiac and respiratory-induced target motion and complex treatment plans.  The authors concluded that these results warrant further investigation and optimization of MLC tracking for intra-cardiac target motion compensation.

Robinson and colleagues (2019) noted that case studies have suggested the efficacy of catheter-free, electrophysiology-guided non-invasive cardiac radioablation for VT using stereotactic body radiation therapy, although prospective data are lacking.  These researchers carried out a prospective phase I/II clinical trial of non-invasive cardiac radioablation in adults with treatment-refractory episodes of VT or cardiomyopathy related to premature ventricular contractions (PVCs).  Arrhythmogenic scar regions were targeted by combining non-invasive anatomic and electric cardiac imaging with a standard stereotactic body radiation therapy workflow followed by delivery of a single fraction of 25 Gy to the target.  The primary safety end-point was treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) in the first 90 days.  The primary efficacy end-point was any reduction in VT episodes (tracked by indwelling implantable cardioverter defibrillators) or any reduction in PVC burden (as measured by a 24-hour Holter monitor) comparing the 6 months before and after treatment (with a 6-week blanking window after treatment).  Health-related quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire.  A total of 19 patients were enrolled (17 for VT, 2 for PVC cardiomyopathy).  Median non-invasive ablation time was 15.3 mins (range of 5.4 to 32.3). In the first 90 days, 2/19 patients (10.5 %) developed a treatment-related serious AE.  The median number of VT episodes was reduced from 119 (range of 4 to 292) to 3 (range of 0 to 31; p < 0.001).  Reduction was observed for both implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks and anti-tachycardia pacing.  VT episodes or PVC burden were reduced in 17/18 evaluable patients (94 %). The frequency of VT episodes or PVC burden was reduced by 75 % in 89 % of patients.  Overall survival (OS) was 89 % at 6 months and 72 % at 12 months.  Use of dual anti-arrhythmic medications decreased from 59 % to 12 % (p = 0.008)’ QOL improved in 5 of 9 SF-36 domains at 6 months.  The authors concluded that non-invasive electrophysiology-guided cardiac radioablation was associated with markedly reduced ventricular arrhythmia burden with modest short-term risks, reduction in anti-arrhythmic drug use, and improvement in QOL.

These researchers stated the findings of this phase I/II clinical trial support continued research into non-invasive cardiac radioablation, with a multi-institutional trial planned.  They noted that with limited numbers of patients (18 evaluable patients) and a lack of long-term safety and efficacy data, this treatment remains investigational.

Krug and associates (2020) noted that single-session cardiac stereotactic body radiotherapy, called cardiac radiosurgery (CRS) or radioablation (RA), may offer a potential therapeutic option for patients with refractory VT and electrical storm who are otherwise ineligible for catheter ablation.  However, there is only limited clinical experience.  These researchers presented the first-in-patient treatment using (CRS/RA) for VT in Germany.  A 78-year old man with dilated cardiomyopathy and significantly reduced EF (15 %) presented with monomorphic VT refractory to poly-anti-arrhythmic medication and causing multiple implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions over the course of several weeks, necessitating prolonged treatment on an intensive care unit (ICU).  Ultra-high-resolution electro-anatomical voltage mapping (EVM) revealed a re-entry circuit in the cardiac septum inaccessible for catheter ablation.  Based on the EVM, CRS/RA with a single-session dose of 25 Gy (83 % isodose) was delivered to the VT substrate (8.1 cc) using a c-arm-based high-precision linear accelerator on November 30, 2018.  CRS/RA was performed without incident and dysfunction of the ICD was not observed.  Following the procedure, a significant reduction in monomorphic VT from 5.0 to 1.6 episodes per week and of ICD shock interventions by 81.2 % was observed.  Besides peri-procedural nausea with a single episode of vomiting, no treatment-associated AEs were noted.  Unfortunately, the patient died 57 days after CRS/RA due to sepsis-associated cardiac circulatory failure after Clostridium difficile-associated colitis developed during rehabilitation.  Histopathologic examination of the heart as part of a clinical autopsy revealed diffuse fibrosis on most sections of the heart without apparent differences between the target area and the posterior cardiac wall serving as a control.  The authors concluded that CRS/RA appeared to be a possible therapeutic option for otherwise untreatable patients suffering from refractory VT and electrical storm.  A relevant reduction in VT incidence and ICD interventions was observed, although long-term outcome and consequences of CRS/RA remain unclear.  These researchers stated that clinical trials are strongly needed and have been initiated.

Neuwirth and co-workers (2019) noted that SBRT for VTs could be an option after failed catheter ablation.  These investigators analyzed the long-term efficacy and toxicity of SBRT applied as a bail-out procedure.  Patients with structural heart disease and unsuccessful catheter ablations for VTs underwent SBRT.  The planning target volume (PTV) was accurately delineated using exported 3D electro-anatomic maps (EAMs) with the delineated critical part of re-entry circuits.  This was defined by detailed EAM and by pacing maneuvers during the procedure.  Using the ICD lead as a surrogate contrast marker for respiratory movement compensation, 25 Gy was delivered to the PTV using CyberKnife.  These researchers evaluated occurrences of sustained VT, electrical storm, anti-tachycardia pacing, and shock; time to death; and radiation-induced events.  From 2014 until March 2017, a total of 10 patients underwent radio-surgical ablation (mean PTV, 22.15 ml; treatment duration, 68 mins).  After radiosurgery, 4 patients experienced nausea and 1 patient presented gradual progression of mitral regurgitation.  During the follow-up (median of 28 months), VT burden was reduced by 87.5 % compared with baseline (p = 0.012), and 3 patients suffered non-arrhythmic deaths.  After the blanking period, VT recurred in 8 of 10 patients.  The mean time to first anti-tachycardia pacing and shock were 6.5 and 21 months, respectively.  The authors concluded that SBRT appeared to show long-term safety and effectiveness for VT ablation in structural heart disease inaccessible to catheter ablation.  They reported 1 possible radiation-related toxicity and promising OS, warranting evaluation in a prospective, multi-center clinical trial.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks.  First, the findings were based on retrospective evaluation with no pre-specified specific primary or secondary outcome.  Second, positron emission tomography (PET) was not available for scar identification.  Third, target delineation was based on an indirect comparison of intra-cardiac maps with CT images, and no direct image registration with CARTO was possible in this first series.  Encouraged by the present pilot data, these investigators have initiated a prospective, multi-center clinical trial in patients with structural heart disease and refractory monomorphic VT who underwent at least 2 failed catheter ablations (with at least 1 performed at a high-volume expert center).  In this trial, the target volume for stereotactic ablation will be defined by a combination of EAM, imaging, and functional techniques (pacing).  Merged data will be incorporated directly into CT images for more precise therapeutic planning.

Alcohol Ablation of Vein of Marshall for the Treatment of Paroxysmal / Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Valderrabano et al (2009a) noted that vein of Marshall (VOM) is an attractive target during ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) due to its autonomic innervation, its location anterior to the left pulmonary veins and drainage in the coronary sinus.  These researchers studied 17 dogs.  A coronary sinus venogram showed a VOM in 13, which was successfully cannulated with an angioplasty wire and balloon.  In 5 dogs, electro-anatomical maps of the left atrium were performed at baseline and after ethanol infusion in the VOM, which demonstrated a new crescent-shaped scar, extending from the annular left atrium towards the posterior wall and left pulmonary veins.  In 4 other dogs, effective refractory periods (ERP) were measured at 3 sites in the left atrium, before and after high-frequency bilateral vagal stimulation.  The ERP decreased from 113.6 +/- 35.0 ms to 82.2 +/- 25.4 ms (p < 0.05) after vagal stimulation.  After VOM ethanol infusion, vagally-mediated ERP decrease was eliminated (from 108.6 +/- 24.1 ms to 96.4 +/- 16.9 ms, p = NS).  The abolition of vagal effects was limited to sites near the VOM (ERP: 104 +/- 14 ms, versus 98.6 +/- 12.2 ms post-vagal stimulation, p = ns), as opposed to sites remote to VOM (ERP: 107.2 +/- 14.9 ms, versus 78.6 +/- 14.7ms post-vagal stimulation, p < 0.05).  To test feasibility in humans, 5 patients undergoing pulmonary vein antral isolation had successful VOM cannulation and ethanol infusion: left atrial voltage maps demonstrated new scar involving the infero-posterior left atrial wall extending towards the left pulmonary veins.  The authors concluded that ethanol infusion in then VOM achieved significant left atrial tissue ablation, abolished local vagal responses and was feasible in humans.

Valderrabano et al (2009b) delineated the safety and ablative effects of ethanol infusion in the VOM during catheter ablation of AF.  Patients undergoing pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVAI; n = 14) gave consent for adjunctive VOM ethanol infusion.  In 10 of 14 patients, the VOM was cannulated with an angioplasty wire and balloon.  Echocardiographic contrast was injected in the VOM under echocardiographic monitoring.  Two infusions of 100 % ethanol (1 ml each) were delivered via the angioplasty balloon in the VOM.  LA bipolar voltage maps were created before and after ethanol infusion.  Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) times needed to isolate each PV and other procedural data were compared with those of 10 age-, sex-, AF type- and LA size-matched control subjects undergoing conventional PVAI.  The VOM communicated with underlying myocardium, as shown by echocardiographic contrast passage into the LA.  There were no acute complications related to VOM ethanol infusion, which led to the creation of a low-voltage area in the LA measuring 10.6 +/- 7.6 cm(2) and isolation of the left inferior PV in 4 of 10 patients; RFA time needed to achieve isolation of the left inferior PV was reduced (2.2 +/- 4 mins versus 11.4 +/- 10.3 mins in control subjects, p < 0.05).  The authors concluded that VOM ethanol infusion was safe in humans, decreased RFA time in the left inferior PV, and may have a role as an adjunct to PVAI.

Dave et al (2012) stated that AF or atrial flutter can recur after PVAI.  The VOM has been linked to the genesis of AF.  These researchers hypothesized that the VOM may play a role in AF recurrences and that VOM ethanol infusion may have therapeutic value in this setting.  A total of 61 patients with recurrent AF or atrial flutter after PVAI were studied.  The VOM was successfully cannulated in 54; VOM and PV electrograms were recorded, and differential PV-VOM pacing was performed.  VOM signals were present in all patients; however, VOM triggers of AF could not be demonstrated.  VOM tachycardia was present in 1 patient.  Left inferior (LIPV) and left superior (LSPV) reconnection was present in 32 and 30 patients, respectively.  Differential pacing in VOM and LIPV showed VOM-mediated LIPV reconnection in 5/32 patients.  In others, VOM and PV connected indirectly via left atrial tissues.  Up to 4 1-cc infusions of 98 % ethanol were delivered in the VOM.  Regardless of the reconnection pattern, ethanol infusion eliminated LIPV and LSPV reconnection in 23/32 and 13/30 patients, respectively.  Ethanol terminated VOM and LIPV tachycardias in 2 patients.  There were no acute procedural complications.  The authors concluded that VOM signals were consistently present in recurrent AF; and VOM may rarely play a role in PV reconnection.  However, VOM ethanol infusion could be useful in patients with recurrent AF after PVAI, assisting in achieving re-disconnection of reconnected left PVs.

Pambrun et al (2019) noted that beyond pulmonary veins (PV) isolation, the ablation strategy for persistent AF remains controversial.  Substrate ablation may provide a high termination rate but at the cost of impaired atrial physiology and recurrent complex re-entries.  To overcome these pitfalls, these investigators examined a new lesion set based on important anatomical considerations.  The case series included 10 consecutive patients with persistent AF; and 3 atrial structures were successively targeted: (i) coronary sinus and VOM (CS-VOM) musculature elimination; (ii) PVs isolation; and (iii) anatomical isthmuses block.  The lesion set completion was the procedural end-point.  Step 1: VOM ethanol infusion was feasible in all cases (mean time of 33.4 ± 9.4 mins), mean RF time for CS-VOM bundles was 14.4 ± 6.9 mins.  Step 2: mean RF time for PV isolation was 27.7 ± 9.3 mins.  Step 3: mean RF time for mitral, roof, and cavo-tricuspid lines was 5.7 ± 2.3, 8.1 ± 4.3, and 5.9 ± 1.9 mins, respectively.  The lesion set was achieved in all patients.  Mean procedure time was 270 ± 29.9 mins.  AF termination and non-inducibility were, respectively, obtained in 50 % and 90 % of the patients.  After a 6-month follow-up, all patients were free from arrhythmia recurrence.  The authors concluded that the present case series reported a new ablation strategy systematically targeting anatomical structures previously identified as possibly involved in the fibrillatory process and the recurrent tachycardias.  The resulting lesion set provided good short-term outcomes.  These researchers stated that although promising, these preliminary results need to be confirmed in the larger prospective study.

Liu et al (2019) clarified the effect of VOM ethanol infusion for treating VOM triggers and/or mitral flutter after first-attempt endocardial ablation in patients with non-paroxysmal AF.  Of the 254 consecutive patients (age of 56 ± 10 years; 221 men) undergoing catheter ablation for drug-refractory non-paroxysmal AF, 32 (12.6 %) received VOM ethanol infusion.  The patients were stratified into group 1 (pulmonary vein isolation [PVI], substrate modification, VOM ethanol infusion), group 2 (PVI, substrate modification), and group 3 (PVI alone).  Propensity-matched analysis (n = 128) of long-term outcomes (3.9 ± 0.5 years) revealed a higher AF recurrence risk in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.17; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 1.63 to 10.69; p = 0.003) and group 3 (HR, 1.82; 95 % CI: 1.09 to 3.04; p = 0.021) than in group 1, as well as a higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence risk in group 2 than in group 1 (HR, 2.42; 95 % CI: 1.16 to 5.03; p = 0.018).  A higher procedural termination rate was observed in group 1 than groups 2 and 3 (41.7 % versus 17.2 % versus 18.8 %; p = 0.042).  On multi-variate analysis, VOM ethanol injection was an independent predictor of freedom from recurrence of AF (HR, 0.20; 95 % CI: 0.08 to 0.52; p = 0.001) and atrial arrhythmia (HR, 0.35; 95 % CI: 0.17 to 0.74; p = 0.005), whereas a left atrial diameter of greater than 45 mm and hypertension were independent risk factors for recurrence.  Peri-procedural complications rates were comparable among the groups.  The authors concluded that adjunctive VOM ethanol infusion was safe and effective for treating non-paroxysmal AF in patients with VOM triggers and/or refractory mitral flutter, providing good long-term freedom from AF and atrial arrhythmia.

Kitamura et al (2019) stated that ethanol infusion of the VOM may be effective to treat Marshall bundle-related atrial tachycardia (MB-AT).  However, methods and clinical results of ethanol infusion for MB-AT have been not established.  In an observational, single-center study, these researchers evaluated the accessibility of the VOM and the success rate of ethanol infusion using a femoral approach for MB-AT.  This trial included consecutive patients who had MB-AT and in whom these investigators attempted to treat MB-AT during AT by ethanol infusion.  When the VOM was able to be cannulated following VOM venogram using a femoral approach, the authors systematically performed ethanol infusion with selective balloon occlusion of the VOM.  They analyzed in detail the efficacy of ethanol infusion of VOM in patients who were in MB-AT during ethanol infusion.  These researchers enrolled 54 consecutive patients in whom they attempted to treat MB-AT by ethanol infusion.  Of those, the VOM was accessible in 92.5 % of patients (50 of 54).  Of the 50 patients treated by ethanol infusion during MB-AT, AT was successfully terminated in 56 % percent of the patients (28 of 50) by solo treatment of ethanol infusion without RF ablation.  The remainder required additional RF application to terminate the MB-AT.  A mean of 6.2 ± 2.8 ml of ethanol was infused resulting in the low-voltage area significantly larger than that before ethanol infusion (12.7 ± 8.3 versus 6.6 ± 5.3 cm2, p < 0.001).  The authors concluded that the present study demonstrated that the VOM was highly accessible and MB-AT was amenable to treatment by ethanol infusion by using a femoral approach.

Valderrabano et al (2019) noted that PVI is effective in the treatment of paroxysmal AF, its success rates in persistent AF are suboptimal.  Ablation strategies to improve outcomes including additional lesions beyond PVI have not consistently shown benefit.  Recurrence as PMF is a common form of ablation failure.  The VOM contains myocardial connections and abundant sympathetic and para-sympathetic innervation implicated in the genesis and maintenance of AF, and is anatomically co-localized with the mitral isthmus, the ablation target of PMF.  These researchers examined the safety and efficacy of VOM ethanol infusion when added to PVI in patients undergoing either de-novo ablation of persistent AF or after a previous ablation failure.  VENUS-AF and MARS-AF are prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled trials.  VENUS-AF will enroll patients undergoing their 1st catheter ablation of persistent AF.  MARS-AF will enroll patients undergoing ablation after previous ablation failure(s).  Patients (n = 405) will be randomized to PVI alone or in combination with VOM ethanol infusion.  The primary end-points include procedural safety and freedom from AF or AT of more than 30 seconds on 30-day continuous event monitors at 6 and 12 months after randomization procedure (single-procedure success), off anti-arrhythmic drugs.  Key secondary end-points include AF burden, freedom from AF/AT after repeat procedures and quality of life (QOL).  The authors concluded that the VENUS-AF and MARS-AF will determine the safety and potential rhythm control benefit of VOM ethanol infusion when added to PVI in patients with persistent AF undergoing de-novo or repeat ablation, respectively.

Kato et al (2019) stated that ethanol injections into the VOM (EIM) are considered to be a good therapeutic option for atrial tachyarrhythmias, however, the safety remains to be determined.  To elucidate what would affect the safety and potential complications of an EIM, these investigators examined the anatomical features of the VOM and patient background.  They performed the EIM before the conventional PVI for drug-resistant AF in 88 patients and evaluated the anatomical features of the VOM and their background.  All procedures were completed, however, other than myocardial staining, trivial contrast medium leaked out of the VOM into the pericardial space, that is, extravasation of contrast medium with capillary rupture, during the EIM in 20 patients (22.7 %) regardless of the features of the VOM.  No pericardial effusions requiring further intervention developed after the extravasation, which resolved by the next day on echocardiography in 18 of those patients.  However, 2 patients who had extravasation other than during the initial contrast injection required additional therapeutic intervention for non-negligible pericardial effusions.  Their body weights were significantly lower and the latter 2 patients were also small lean women with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction.  The authors concluded that the physical constitution, regardless of the characteristics of the VOM, could be strongly associated with adverse events (AEs) during the EIM.  These investigators must take extreme care in smaller patients with poor compliant hearts during the EIM.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks.  First, this was a retrospective cohort study that included very few complications.  Thus, they could not perform multivariate analyses to determine the predictors of the Intervention(+) group, which required additional intervention, and there might not have been an adequate statistical power even in the univariate analyses.  However, all the cases in the Intervention(+) group were physically small women and the multi-variate analyses showed that the body weight was the only significant predictor of the ML(+) group, which included the Intervention(+) group, suggesting that leanness might be one of the important risk factors of the extravasation of the contrast medium with capillary rupture leading to AEs.  Furthermore, out of all the patients, only 2 cases suffering from HFpEF required intervention.  They might have had a decreased heart compliance with an increased central venous pressure, which could have been responsible for the serious complications.  It was not possible to statistically analyze the correlation between the existence of HFpEF and the complications, however, it might still remain necessary to clarify whether the heart compliance could affect the results.  Second, these researchers experienced 2 cases with complications during the early phase even when injecting the ethanol very slowly (1 ml over more than 1 min).  After that, these researchers fortunately did not experience any further serious complications since they began performing the ethanol injection using the same size syringe but by delivering the ethanol more slowly and gently than before.  However, these investigators encountered several patients with trivial extravasation associated with a capillary rupture that resolved without any further intervention.  The authors did not measure the accurate pressure using a manometer during the injections, and thus, they could not objectively determine the threshold related to the serious complications.  Finally, the extravasation of the contrast medium with capillary rupture was determined visually with fluoroscopy, so the authors might have missed an imperceptible extravasation.  Further, the above hypotheses were based upon the pathophysiological findings observed in only 1 case.  These researchers stated that further investigation is needed to clarify the mechanisms of the complications of the EIM to perform a safer EIM.

Furthermore, an UpToDate review on “Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation” (Spragg and Kumar, 2019) does not mention alcohol ablation of vein of Marshall as a therapeutic option.

Okishige and co-workers (2020) ethanol infusion (EI) in the vein of Marshall (VOM) has multi-factorial effects that could be synergistic to PVI in ablation of AF.  The effectiveness of RFA versus cryoablation when combined with a EI-VOM has never been examined.  These researchers examined outcome differences of AF ablation using RF versus cryoablation when combined with EI-VOM.  Consecutive patients (n = 132) underwent catheter ablation of paroxysmal AF with either RF or cryo-balloon (CB) for PVI combined with EI-VOM.  Bi-directional conduction block at the mitral isthmus was attempted.  The end-point was the freedom from any atrial arrhythmias documented after a blanking period of 90 days after the procedure.  Kaplan-Meier estimates of the arrhythmia-free survival after 1 year were 63.8 % (RF + EI-VOM), and 82.7 % (CB + EI-VOM), respectively.  Comparison between CB + EI-VOM versus RF + EI-VOM reached a significance (p = 0.0292).  The peri-procedural complication rate was comparable in both groups (5.0 % RF, 5.8 % CB; p = 0.14) with a significant difference in the incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (0 % RF, 2.0 % CB; p < 0.05).  The authors concluded that the EI-VOM failed to demonstrate any significant improvement in the ablation long-term results of paroxysmal AF; however, CB ablation combined with EI-VOM had a significantly improved outcome compared to a PVI with an RFA combined with EI-VOM.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks.  First, this trial constituted a non-randomized analysis of consecutive patients, including the initial patients treated with the 2nd-generation CB device.  However, all operators were well-trained in CB ablation and beyond the learning curve, minimizing any time-dependent confounders.  Second, the group sizes were small; however, a number of the efficacy parameters differed significantly between the groups.  Third, the assignment of the study patients into the 4 groups might not be appropriate, because grouping of patients depended on whether the VOM was present or not.  Fourth, a comparison of PVI versus PVI plus EI-VOM might be unfair due to the additive effects of creating a lesion in the mitral isthmus region.  Fifth, the evaluation of the success and complication rates was complex.  Sixth, a procedure trying to construct the mitral isthmus block (MIB) was not carried out in Group RF+ EI-VOM, and this might have affected the rate of freedom from AF / atrial tachycardia (AT).  However, all recurrent arrhythmias were AF instead of left-sided ATs rotating along the mitral annulus; thus, it was unlikely that the absence of the MIB could affect the clinical results in Group RF + EI-VOM.  Seventh, by definition, successful maintenance of sinus rhythm strongly relies on the length of the follow-up, which varies from center to center.  Because these investigators reported on the 12-month follow-up data from out-patient clinic visits or telephone interviews, they could not exclude that AF recurrent episodes could have been missed in some patients.  Eighth, the examinations to evaluate the efficacy of ablation procedure such as periodic 12-lead ECG and Holter monitoring recording might not be sufficient to strictly investigate the clinical efficacy of each ablation modality.  Finally, there was no comparison between a control group in the present study.

In a randomized clinical trial, Valderrbano and colleagues (2020) examined if vein of Marshall ethanol infusion could improve ablation results in persistent AF when added to catheter ablation.  The Vein of Marshall Ethanol for Untreated Persistent AF (VENUS) Trial was an investigator-initiated, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded, randomized, single-blinded trial carried out in 12 centers in the U.S.  Patients (n = 350) with persistent AF referred for 1st ablation were enrolled from October 2013 through June 2018; follow-up concluded in June 2019.  Patients were randomly assigned to catheter ablation alone (n = 158) or catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion (n = 185) in a 1:1.15 ratio to accommodate for 15 % technical vein of Marshall ethanol infusion failures.  The primary outcome was freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia for longer than 30 seconds after a single procedure, without anti-arrhythmic drugs, at both 6 and 12 months.  Outcome assessment was blinded to randomization treatment.  There were 12 secondary outcomes, including AF burden, freedom from AF after multiple procedures, peri-mitral block, and others.  Of the 343 randomized patients (mean [SD] age of 66.5 [9.7] years; 261 men), 316 (92.1 %) completed the trial.  Vein of Marshall ethanol was successfully delivered in 155 of 185 patients.  At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients with freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia after a single procedure was 49.2 % (91/185) in the catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion group compared with 38 % (60/158) in the catheter ablation alone group (difference, 11.2 % [95 % CI: 0.8 % to 21.7 %]; p = 0.04).  Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 9 were not significantly different, but AF burden (zero burden in 78.3 % versus 67.9 %; difference, 10.4 % [95 % CI: 2.9 % to 17.9 %]; p = 0.01), freedom from AF after multiple procedures (65.2 % versus 53.8 %; difference, 11.4 % [95 % CI: 0.6 % to 22.2 %]; p = 0.04), and success achieving peri-mitral block (80.6 % versus 51.3 %; difference, 29.3 % [95 % CI: 19.3 % to 39.3 %]; p < 0.001) were significantly improved in vein of Marshall-treated patients; AEs were similar between groups.  The authors concluded that among patients with persistent AF, addition of vein of Marshall ethanol infusion to catheter ablation, compared with catheter ablation alone, increased the likelihood of remaining free of AF or atrial tachycardia at 6 and 12 months.  Moreover, these researchers stated that further research is needed to evaluate longer-term efficacy.

Liu and associates (2020) noted that in randomized studies, the strategy of PVI plus linear ablation has failed to increase success rates for persistent AF (PeAF) ablation when compared with PVI alone.  Peri-mitral re-entry related atrial tachycardia due to incomplete linear block is an important cause of clinical failures of a 1st ablation procedure; and EI-VOM has been shown to facilitate a durable mitral isthmus linear lesion.  This trial is designed to compare arrhythmia-free survival between PVI and an ablation strategy termed upgraded “2C3L” for ablation of PeAF.  The PROMPT-AF study is a prospective, multi-center, randomized trial involving blinded assessment of outcomes.  Patients (n = 276) undergoing their 1st catheter ablation of PeAF will be randomized to either the upgraded “2C3L” arm or PVI arm in a 1:1 fashion.  The upgraded “2C3L” technique is a fixed ablation approach consisting of EI-VOM, bilateral circumferential PVI and 3 linear ablation lesion sets across the mitral isthmus, left atrial roof, and cavo-tricuspid isthmus.  The follow-up duration is 12 months.  The primary end-point is the rate of documented atrial tachycardia arrhythmias of greater than 30 seconds, without any anti-arrhythmic drugs, in 12 months after the index ablation procedure (excluding a blanking period of 3 months).  The authors stated that the PROMPT-AF study will examine the efficacy of the fixed “2C3L” approach in conjunction with EI-VOM, compared with PVI alone, in patients with PeAF undergoing de-novo ablation.

Alcohol Ablation of Vein of Marshall for the Treatment of Peri-Mitral Flutter

Takigawa and colleagues (2020) hypothesized that an epicardial approach using EI-VOM may improve the result of ablation for peri-mitral flutter (PMF).  These researchers studied 103 consecutive patients with PMF undergoing high-resolution mapping.  The first 71 were treated with RFA alone (RF-group), and the next 32 underwent EI-VOM followed by RFA on the endocardial and epicardial mitral isthmus (EI-VOM/RF-group).  Contact force was not measured during ablation; acute and 1-year outcomes were compared.  Flutter termination rates were similar between the RF-group (63/71, 88.7 %) and EI-VOM/RF-group (31/32, 96.8 %, p = 0.27).  Atrial tachycardia (AT) terminated with EI-VOM alone in 22/32 (68.6 %) in the EI-VOM/RF-group.  Bi-directional block of mitral isthmus was always achieved in the EI-VOM/RF-group, but significantly less frequently achieved in the RF-group (62/71, 87.3 %; p = 0.05).  Median RF duration for AT termination/conversion was shorter [0 s (0 to 6) in the EI-VOM/RF-group than 312 s (55 to 610) in the RF-group, p < 0.0001], as well as for mitral isthmus block in the EI-VOM/RF-group [246 s (0 to 663)] than in the RF-group [900 s (525 to 1,310), p < 0.0001].  Pericardial effusion was observed in 1/32 (3.2 %) in EI-VOM/RF-group and 5/71 (7.0 %) in RF-group (p = 0.66); 2 in RF-group required drainage and 1 of them developed subsequent ischemic stroke.  One-year follow-up showed fewer recurrences in the EI-VOM/RF-group [6/32 (18.8 %)] than in the RF-group [29/71 (40.8 %), p = 0.04].  By multi-variate analysis, only EI-VOM was significantly associated with less AT recurrence (HR = 0.35, p = 0.018).  The authors concluded that EI-VOM may reduce RF duration needed for PMF termination as well as for mitral isthmus block without severe complications, and the mid-term outcome may be improved by this approach.  This was a relatively small study (n = 32 in the EI-VOM/RF-group) with mid-term results.  These preliminary findings need to be validated by well-designed studies with larger sample size and long-term follow-up.

ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow Catheter for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Gonna and associates (2017) stated that the Biosense Webster ThermoCool SmartTouch Surround Flow (STSF) catheter (STSFc) is a recently developed ablation catheter incorporating Surround Flow (SF) technology to ensure efficient cooling and force sensing to quantify tissue contact.  In the authors’ unit, it superseded the ThermoCool SF catheter (STc) from the time of its introduction in May 2015.  Procedure-related data were collected prospectively for the first 100 ablation procedures carried out in the authors’ department using the STSFc.  From a data-base of 654 procedures performed in the authors’ unit using the SF catheter, these investigators selected one to match each STSF procedure, matching for procedure type, operator experience, patient age, and gender.  The groups were well-matched for patient age, gender, and procedure type.  Procedure duration was similar in both groups (mean of 225.5 versus 221.4 mins, inter-quartile range [IQR] 106.5 versus 91.5, p = 0.55), but fluoroscopy duration was shorter in the STSF group (mean of 25.8 versus 30.0, IQR 19.6 versus 18.5, p = 0.03).  No complication occurred in the STSF group.  Complications occurred in 2 cases in the SF group (1 peri-cardial effusion requiring drainage and 1 need for permanent pacing).  Complete procedural success was achieved in 98 cases in the STSF group and 94 cases in the SF group (p = 0.15).  The composite end-point of procedure failure or acute complication was less common in the STSF group (2 versus 8, p = 0.05).  The authors concluded that the STSFc was safe and effective in treating a range of arrhythmias.  Compared with the SF catheter, it showed a trend towards improved safety-efficacy balance.

Chen and colleagues (2020) noted that the STSFc is an advanced catheter integrating contact force sensing and Surround Flow technology; however, comparative data between STSFc and contact force sensing catheter (STc) are limited.  In a meta-analysis, these researchers compared the safety and effectiveness between the STSFc and the STc for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).  The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing STSFc and STc.  A total of 4 trials involving 727 patients were included in the study.  Pool-analyses demonstrated that, compared with STc ablation, STSFc ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural times (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.22; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -0.37 to -0.07, p = 0.005) and irrigation fluid volume (SMD: -1.94; 95 % CI: -2.65 to -1.22, p < 0.0001).  There was no significant difference between STSFc and STc (risk ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95 % CI: 0.86 to 1.21, p = 0.79) for free-from AF.  Evidence of complications were low and similar for both groups (RR: 0.83; 95 % CI: 0.19 to 3.55, p = 0.80).  Furthermore, patients administered STSFc ablation tended to have shorter fluoroscopic times (SMD: -0.20; 95 % CI: -0.63 to 0.23, p = 0.21).  The authors concluded that STSFc ablation was associated with reducing procedural times and irrigation fluid volume.  Furthermore, STSFc ablation tended to shorten fluoroscopic times; thus, STSFc ablation would be a better choice for AF patients especially in patients with heart failure.  Moreover, these researchers stated that more well‐designed and large‐scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

The authors stated that this meta‐analysis had several drawbacks:  First, publication bias could not be completely excluded, as with any literature search of data-bases, and inclusion of only published data contributed to bias.  Second, the numbers of included studies was limited to only 4 trials.  Third, most of the studies were designed as prospective, non‐randomized trials.  Fourth, in the context of important clinical outcomes from complications and long‐term follow‐up, the included studies, these researchers acknowledged that fewer studies had reported the related end‐points, which made the pooled analysis relatively weak.

Table: CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-10 Codes
Code Code Description

Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes.   Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":

CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:

33250 - 33251 Operative ablation of supraventricular arrhythmogenic focus or pathway (e.g., Wolff-Parkinson-White, atrioventricular node re-entry), tract(s) and/or focus (foci); without cardiopulmonary bypass or with cardiopulmonary bypass
33254 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, limited (e.g., modified maze procedure)
33256 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, extensive (eg, maze procedure); with cardiopulmonary bypass
+ 33257 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, performed at the time of other cardiac procedure(s), limited (e.g., modified maze procedure) (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
+ 33259 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, performed at the time of other cardiac procedure(s), extensive (e.g., maze procedure), with cardiopulmonary bypass (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
33261 Operative ablation of ventricular arrhythmogenic focus with cardiopulmonary bypass
+ 93613 Intracardiac electrophysiologic 3-dimensional mapping [for guiding radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of arrhythmias]
93650 Intracardiac catheter ablation of atrioventricular node function, atrioventricular conduction for creation of complete heart block, with or without temporary pacemaker placement [not covered for intra-myocardial infusion-needle catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia]
93653 Comprehensive electrophysiologic evaluation including insertion and repositioning of multiple electrode catheters with induction or attempted induction of an arrhythmia with right atrial pacing and recording, right ventricular pacing and recording, His recording with intracardiac catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic focus; with treatment of supraventricular tachycardia by ablation of fast or slow atrioventricular pathway, accessory atrioventricular connection, cavo-tricuspid isthmus or other single atrial focus or source of atrial re-entry
93654 Comprehensive electrophysiologic evaluation including insertion and repositioning of multiple electrode catheters with induction or attempted induction of an arrhythmia with right atrial pacing and recording, right ventricular pacing and recording, His recording with intracardiac catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic focus; with treatment of ventricular tachycardia or focus of ventricular ectopy including intracardiac electrophysiologic 3D mapping, when performed, and left ventricular pacing and recording, when performed
93655 Intracardiac catheter ablation of a discrete mechanism of arrhythmia which is distinct from the primary ablated mechanism, including repeat diagnostic maneuvers, to treat a spontaneous or induced arrhythmia (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)[not covered for intra-myocardial infusion-needle catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia]
93656 Comprehensive electrophysiologic evaluation including transseptal catheterizations, insertion and repositioning of multiple electrode catheters with induction or attempted induction of an arrhythmia with atrial recording and pacing, when possible, right ventricular pacing and recording, His bundle recording with intracardiac catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic focus, with treatment of atrial fibrillation by ablation by pulmonary vein isolation
93657 Additional linear or focal intracardiac catheter ablation of the left or right atrium for treatment of atrial fibrillation remaining after completion of pulmonary vein isolation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB: :

C1732 Catheter, Electrophysiology, diagnostic/ablation 3D or vector mapping
C1886 Catheter, extravascular tissue ablation, any modality (insertable)

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:

I44.30 - I44.7
I45.0 - I45.4
Bundle branch block
I45.6 Pre-excitation syndrome [Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome]
I45.89 Other specified conduction disorders
I47.0, I47.2 Paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia, [unstable, rapid, multiple or polymorphic that cannot be localized by mapping - not covered] [benign non-sustained that does not cause symptoms - not covered]
I48.0 Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
I48.11 - I48.19 Persistent atrial fibrillation
I49.3 Ventricular premature depolarization
I49.8 - I49.9 Other specified and unspecified cardiac arrhythmias [multifocal atrial tachycardia - not covered]
I97.710 - I97.711
I97.790 - I97.791
I97.88 - I97.89
Intraoperative cardiac functional disturbances and postprocedural cardiac complications and disorders
Z86.74 Personal history of sudden cardiac arrest

ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:

I42.1 Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
I42.2 Other hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Alcohol ablation of vein of Marshall:

CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:

93583 Percutaneous transcatheter septal reduction therapy (eg, alcohol septal ablation) including temporary pacemaker insertion when performed

ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:

I48.0 Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
I48.11 - I48.19 Persistent atrial fibrillation
I48.3 Typical atrial flutter [peri-mitral flutter]
I48.4 Atypical atrial flutter [peri-mitral flutter]

The above policy is based on the following references:

  1. American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Technology Assessment Committee. Catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: Clinical applications, personnel and facilities. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24(3):828-833.
  2. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association. Guidelines for Clinical Intracardiac Electrophysiological and Catheter Ablation Procedures. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 1995;92(3):673-691.
  3. Antunes E, Silveira C, de Sousa L, et al. The nonpharmacological treatment of atrial fibrillation. Rev Port Cardiol. 1999;18(3):273-278.
  4. Asakai H, Kirsh JA. Optimizing outcomes of catheter ablation in infants and toddlers. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13(3):333-340.
  5. Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Scheinman MM, Aliot EM, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias--executive summary. A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines and the European society of cardiology committee for practice guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias) developed in collaboration with NASPE-Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1493-1531.
  6. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Pulmonary vein isolation for treatment of atrial fibrillation. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; May 2006;21(1).
  7. Bonanno C, Paccanaro M, La Vecchia L, et al. Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2010;11(6):408-418.
  8. Bradley DJ, Shen WK. Atrioventricular junction ablation combined with either right ventricular pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy for atrial fibrillation: The need for large-scale randomized trials. Heart Rhythm. 2007;4(2):224-232.
  9. Brandao L, Carrageta M. The therapeutic approach in refractory supraventricular tachycardias. Rev Port Cardiol. 1999;18(3):309-314.
  10. Burkhardt JD, Natale A. New technologies in atrial fibrillation ablation. Circulation. 2009;120(15):1533-1541.
  11. Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, et al.; Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(4):632-696.
  12. Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, et al; Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design: a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. Developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Endorsed by the governing bodies of the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart Association, the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(4):632-696.
  13. Chen C, Zhou X, Zhu M, et al. Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018;52(1):9-18.
  14. Chen C-F, Gao X-F, Liu M-J, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43(3):267-274.
  15. Cheung JW, Lin FS, Ip JE, et al. Adenosine-induced pulmonary vein ectopy as a predictor of recurrent atrial fibrillation following pulmonary vein isolation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6(6):1066-1073.
  16. Colín Lizalde Lde J. Supraventricular tachycardial ablation supported with an electroanatomical system. Arch Cardiol Mex. 2007;77 Suppl 4:139-143.
  17. Cosedis Nielsen J, Johannessen A, Raatikainen P, et al. Radiofrequency ablation as initial therapy in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(17):1587-1595.
  18. Cuculich PS, Schill MR, Kashani R, et al. Noninvasive cardiac radiation for ablation of ventricular tachycardia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(24):2325-2336.
  19. Da Costa A, Ben H'dech M, Romeyer-Bouchard C, et al. Remote-controlled magnetic pulmonary vein isolation using a new three-dimensional non-fluoroscopic navigation system: A single-centre prospective study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2013;106(8-9):423-432.
  20. Dagres N, Varounis C, Gaspar T, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Fail. 2011;17(11):964-970.
  21. Dave AS, Baez-Escudero JL, Sasaridis C, et al. Role of the vein of Marshall in atrial fibrillation recurrences after catheter ablation: Therapeutic effect of ethanol infusion. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23(6):583-591.  
  22. Dupuy DE. Radiofrequency ablation: An outpatient percutaneous treatment. Med Health R I. 1999;82(6):213-216.
  23. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); European Cardiac Arrhythmia Scoiety (ECAS); American College of Cardiology (ACC); American Heart Association (AHA); Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), Calkins H, Brugada J, Packer DL, et al. HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert Consensus Statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Recommendations for personnel, policy, procedures and follow-up. A report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2007;4(6):816-861.
  24. Farre J, Rubio JM, Navarro F, et al. Current role and future perspectives for radiofrequency catheter ablation of postmyocardial infarction ventricular tachycardia. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78(5A):76-88.
  25. Giardina EG. Atrial fibrillation and stroke: Elucidating a newly discovered risk factor. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80(4C):11D-18D.
  26. Goldberger J, Kall J, Ehlert F, et al. Effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of atrial tachycardia. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:787-793.
  27. Gonna H, Domenichini G, Zuberi Z, et al. Initial clinical results with the ThermoCool® SmartTouch® Surround Flow catheter. Europace. 2017;19(8):1317-1321.
  28. Hakalahti A, Biancari F, Nielsen JC, Raatikainen MJ. Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2015;17(3):370-378.
  29. Hazel SJ. A systematic review of intraoperative ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. ASERNIP-S Report No. 38. North Adelaide, SA: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical (ASERNIP-S); 2004.
  30. Hindricks G, Willems S, Kautzner J, et al; EuroFlutter Investigators. Effect of electroanatomically guided versus conventional catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter on the fluoroscopy time and resource use: A prospective randomized multicenter study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(7):734-740.
  31. Ip S, Terasawa T, Balk EM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 15. Prepared by the Tufts Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), contract number 290-02-0022. AHRQ Publication No. 09-EHC015-EF. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; July 2009
  32. Kato K, Tanaka A, Morimoto SI, et al. Potential complications in patients undergoing an ethanol injection into the vein of Marshall. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(12):2743-2750.
  33. Kay GN, Chong F, Epstein AE, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for treatment of primary atrial tachycardias. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:901-909.
  34. Kay GN, Plumb VJ. The present role of radiofrequency catheter ablation in the management of cardiac arrhythmias. Am J Med. 1996;100:344-356.
  35. Khan MN, Jaïs P, Cummings J, et al; PABA-CHF Investigators. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1778-1785.
  36. Khargi K, Hutten BA, Lemke B, Deneke T. Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27(2):258-265.
  37. Khaykin Y, Wang X, Natale A, et al. Cost comparison of ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line therapy for atrial fibrillation: An economic evaluation of the RAAFT pilot study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(1):7-12.
  38. Kitamura T, Vlachos K, Denis A, et al. Ethanol infusion for Marshall bundle epicardial connections in Marshall bundle-related atrial tachycardias following atrial fibrillation ablation: The accessibility and success rate of ethanol infusion by using a femoral approach. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(9):1443-1451.
  39. Knackstedt C, Schauerte P, Kirchhof P. Electro-anatomic mapping systems in arrhythmias. Europace. 2008;10 Suppl 3:iii28-iii34.
  40. Kosinski D, Grubb BP, Wolfe DA, Mayhew H. Catheter ablation for atrial flutter and fibrillation: An effective alternative to medical therapy. Postgrad Med. 1998;103(1):103-106; discussion 109-110.
  41. Krug D, Blanck O, Demming T, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for ventricular tachycardia (cardiac radiosurgery): First-in-patient treatment in Germany. Strahlenther Onkol. 2020;196(1):23-30. 
  42. Krzowski B, Balsam P, Peller M, et al. Electrophysiological procedures in patients with coagulation disorders -- A systemic review. Circ J. 2020;84(6):875-882.
  43. Kuck KH, Schaumann A, Eckardt L, et al. Catheter ablation of stable ventricular tachycardia before defibrillator implantation in patients with coronary heart disease (VTACH): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9708):31-40.
  44. Lauribe P, Shah D, Jais P, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of drug refractory symptomatic ventricular ectopy: Short- and long-term results. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22(5):783-789.
  45. Lawrenz T, Borchert B, Leuner C, et al. Endocardial radiofrequency ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy: Acute results and 6 months' follow-up in 19 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(5):572-576.
  46. Lee PC, Hwang B, Chen YJ, et al. Electrophysiologic characteristics and radiofrequency catheter ablation in children with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29(5):490-495.
  47. Lesh MD, Van Hare GF, Epstein LM, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial arrhythmias. Circulation. 1994;89:1074-1089.
  48. Lesh MD. Interventional electrophysiology - state of the art 1993. Am Heart J. 1993;126:686-698.
  49. Lickfett L, Calkins H. Catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2002;50(3):189-207.
  50. Liu CM, Lo LW, Lin YJ, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall during catheter ablation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(8):1215-1228.
  51. Liu X, Wang XH, Gu JN, et al. Electroanatomical systems to guided circumferential pulmonary veins ablation for atrial fibrillation: Initial experience from comparison between the Ensite/NavX and CARTO system. Chin Med J (Engl). 2005;118(14):1156-1160.
  52. Liu X-X, Sang C-H, Long D-Y, et al. Prospective randomized comparison between upgraded '2C3L' vs. PVI approach for catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: PROMPT-AF trial design. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Nov 15 [Online ahead of print].
  53. Lydiard S, Caillet V, Ipsen S, et al. Investigating multi-leaf collimator tracking in stereotactic arrhythmic radioablation (STAR) treatments for atrial fibrillation. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(19):195008. 
  54. Macle L, Khairy P, Verma A, et al; ADVICE Study Investigators. Adenosine following pulmonary vein isolation to target dormant conduction elimination (ADVICE): Methods and rationale. Can J Cardiol. 2012;28(2):184-190.
  55. Manolis AS, Wang PJ, Estes M. Radiofrequency catheter ablation for cardiac tachyarrhythmias. Ann Int Med. 1994;121:452-461.
  56. Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, et al; CASTLE-AF Investigators. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(5):417-427.
  57. Marshall HJ. The role of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. Hosp Med. 1999;60(5):320-321.
  58. McLellan AJ, Kumar S, Smith C, et al. The role of adenosine following pulmonary vein isolation in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(7):742-751.
  59. Mont L, Bisbal F, Hernandez-Madrid A, et al; SARA investigators. Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study). Eur Heart J. 2014;35(8):501-507.
  60. Morales GX, Macle L, Khairy P, et al. Adenosine testing in atrial flutter ablation: Unmasking of dormant conduction across the cavotricuspid isthmus and risk of recurrence. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(9):995-1001.
  61. Morillo CA, Verma A, Connolly SJ, et al; RAAFT-2 Investigators. Radiofrequency ablation vs antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (RAAFT-2): A randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(7):692-700.
  62. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Microwave ablation for atrial fibrillation in association with other cardiac surgery. Interventional Procedure Guidance 122. London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2005.
  63. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation in association with other cardiac surgery. Interventional Procedure Guidance 121. London, UK: NICE; 2005. 
  64. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation. Interventional Procedure Guidance 168. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2006.
  65. Neuwirth R, Cvek J, Knybel L, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for ablation of ventricular tachycardia. Europace. 2019;21(7):1088-1095.
  66. Noheria A, Kumar A, Wylie JV, Josephson ME. Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6):581-586.
  67. Noorani HZ, Yee R, Marshall D, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: A clinical and economic review. Technology Report No. 25. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2002.
  68. Okishige K, Kawaguchi N , Iwai S, et al. Comparative study of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency for pulmonary vein isolation when combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Atr Fibrillation. 2020 Feb 28;12(5):2253.
  69. Olshansky B, Sulo R. A practical approach to atrial fibrillation. Hosp Pract. 1999;34(5):61-64, 69-72, 75-77.
  70. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS). Advanced electrophysiologic mapping systems. Health Technology Policy Assessment. Toronto, ON: MAS; 2006.
  71. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS). Ablation for atrial fibrillation. Health Technology Policy Assessment. Toronto, ON: MAS; 2006.
  72. Pambrun T, Denis A, Duchateau J, et al. MARSHALL bundles elimination, Pulmonary veins isolation and Lines completion for ANatomical ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: MARSHALL-PLAN case series. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30(1):7-15.
  73. Pappone C, Manguso F, Santinelli R, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in children with asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(12):1197-1205.
  74. Pappone C, Vicedomini G, Manguso F, et al. Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome in the era of catheter ablation: Insights from a registry study of 2169 patients. Circulation. 2014;130(10):811-819.
  75. Pass RH, Gates GG, Gellis LA, et al. Reducing patient radiation exposure during paediatric SVT ablations: Use of CARTO® 3 in concert with "ALARA" principles profoundly lowers total dose. Cardiol Young. 2015;25(5):963-968.
  76. Patel MR, Biviano AB. Atrial fibrillation ablation and left appendage closure in heart failure patients. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015;30(3):259-266.
  77. Pichon Riviere A, Augustovski F, Ferrante D, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation technique in atrial fibrillation. Report IRR No. 47. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS); 2005.
  78. Pratola C, Baldo E, Notarstefano P, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: Is the persistence of all intraprocedural targets necessary for long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm? Circulation. 2008;117(2):136-143.
  79. Proclemer A, Della Bella P, Tondo C, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of atrioventricular junction and pacemaker implantation versus modulation of atrioventricular conduction in drug refractory atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(10):1437-1442.
  80. Rajappan K, Ginks M. Catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. Future Cardiol. 2014;10(4):553-562.
  81. Robinson CG, Samson PP, Moore KMS, et al. Phase I/II trial of electrophysiology-guided noninvasive cardiac radioablation for ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 2019;139(3):313-321.
  82. Rodgers M, McKenna C, Palmer S, et al. Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: Systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;12(34): i-xiii, 1-220.
  83. Rottlaender D, Motloch LJ, Hoppe UC. Cryothermal energy: A new perspective for interventional therapy of cardiac arrhythmias? Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2009;134(43):2174-2178.
  84. Sapp JL, Beeckler C, Pike R, et al. Initial human feasibility of infusion needle catheter ablation for refractory ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 2013;128(21):2289-2295.
  85. Scheinman MM. Catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: Personnel and facilities. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology Ad Hoc Committee on Catheter Ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992;15(5):715-721.
  86. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(8):804-847.
  87. Sorbera C, Dhakam S, Cohen M, et al. Safety and efficacy of outpatient transseptal radiofrequency ablation of atrioventricular accessory pathways. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1999;3(2):173-175.
  88. Spar DS, Anderson JB, Lemen L, et al. Consequence of use of lower dose flat plate fluoroscopy in pediatric patients undergoing ablation for supraventricular tachycardia. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(1):85-89.
  89. Spragg D, Kumar K. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA. Last reviewed November 2019.
  90. Sreeram N, Emmel M, de Giovanni JV. Percutaneous radiofrequency septal reduction for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy in children. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):2501-2510.
  91. Suleiman M, Gepstein L, Roguin A, et al. Catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias guided by electroanatomic imaging (CARTO): A single-center experience. Isr Med Assoc J. 2007;9(4):260-264.
  92. Svintsova LI, Popov SV, Kovalev IA. Radiofrequency ablation of drug-refractory arrhythmias in small children younger than 1 year of age: Single-center experience. Pediatr Cardiol. 2013;34(6):1321-1329.
  93. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation -- Alert. Stockholm, Sweden; SBU; February 2, 2005.
  94. Takigawa M, Vlachos K, Martin CA, et al. Acute and mid-term outcome of ethanol infusion of vein of Marshall for the treatment of perimitral flutter.
  95. Tang RB, Dong JZ, Liu XP, et al. Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus -- single center experience. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2006;17(1):41-46.
  96. The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC). Radiofrequency ablation in treatment of atrial fibrillation [summary]. NOKC Report No. 15-2006. Oslo, Norway: NOKC; 2006.
  97. Tracy CM, Akhtar M, DiMarco JP, et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association; American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training; Heart Rhythm Society. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2006 update of the clinical competence statement on invasive electrophysiologystudies, catheterablation, and cardioversion: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1503-1517.
  98. Valderrabano M, Chen HR, Sidhu J, et al. Retrograde ethanol infusion in the vein of Marshall: Regional left atrial ablation, vagal denervation and feasibility in humans. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009a;2(1):50-56.
  99. Valderrabano M, Liu X, Sasaridis C, et al. Ethanol infusion in the vein of Marshall: Adjunctive effects during ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2009b;6(11):1552-1558.
  100. Valderrabano M, Peterson LE, Bunge R, et al. Vein of Marshall ethanol infusion for persistent atrial fibrillation: VENUS and MARS clinical trial design. Am Heart J. 2019;215:52-61.
  101. Valderrbano M, Peterson LE, Swarup V, et al. Effect of catheter ablation with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion vs catheter ablation alone on persistent atrial fibrillation: The VENUS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(16):1620-1628. 
  102. Vatz JB, Brown EF. Diagnostic and therapeutic technology assessment (DATTA): Radiofrequency catheter ablation of aberrant conducting pathways of the heart. JAMA. 1992;268:2091-2098.
  103. Verma A, Jiang CY, Betts TR, et al; STAR AF II Investigators. Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1812-1822.
  104. Verma A, Macle L, Cox J, Skanes AC; CCS Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Committee. Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27(1):60-66.
  105. Viola N, Williams MR, Oz MC, Ad N. The technology in use for the surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;14(3):198-205.
  106. Waldo AL, Mackall JA, Biblo LA. Mechanisms and medical management of patients with atrial flutter. Cardiol Clin. 1997;15(4):661-676.
  107. Weinstock J, Wang PJ, Homoud MK, et al. Clinical results with catheter ablation: AV junction, atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycard-ia. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2003;9(2):275-288.
  108. Wilton SB, Fundytus A, Ghali WA, et al. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with versus without left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(9):1284-1291.
  109. Wu J, Deisenhofer I, Ammar S, et al. Acute and long-term outcome after catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia in patients after the Mustard or Senning operation for D-transposition of the great arteries. Europace. 2013;15(6):886-891.
  110. Wyse DG. A critical perspective on the role of catheter ablation in management of atrial fibrillation. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(10):1150-1157.
  111. Zei PC, Soltys S. Ablative radiotherapy as a noninvasive alternative to catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017;19(9):79.
  112. Zei PC, Wong D, Gardner E, et al. Safety and efficacy of stereotactic radioablation targeting pulmonary vein tissues in an experimental model. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15(9):1420-1427.
  113. Zipes DP, Camm AJ, Borggrefe M, et al.; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force; European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines; European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death--executive summary. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(17):2099-2140.