Outcome after ablation of atypical atrial flutter: Is induction a feasible approach?

Abstract

Background: Atypical atrial flutter (AAF) is an increasingly relevant clinical problem. Despite advancements in mapping and ablation techniques, the general management of these patients remain challenging especially when mapping cannot be performed during ongoing arrhythmia. There are no data whether induction of AAF is a feasible approach in these cases. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent catheter ablation of AAF and compared procedural results between patients with ongoing tachycardia when starting the procedure and patients with induced AAF. Results: We analyzed 97 ablation procedures performed in 76 patients with a mean follow-up of 13.2 ± 12.2 months. In 68 procedures (70.1 %) AAF was ongoing at the beginning of the procedure and in 29 cases (29.9 %) AAF had to be induced.There was no statistically significant difference regarding acute procedural success. The recurrence rate of any arrhythmia during follow-up was significantly higher after ablation of ongoing AAF compared to induced AAF (63.2 % vs. 42.9 %; p = 0.047) driven by a significant higher rate of AAF-recurrence (57.4 % vs. 34.5 %; p = 0.039). The number of ablated tachycardias per patient as well as the number of de-novo tachycardias found during re-ablation showed no significant difference between both groups. Conclusion: Starting a procedure with ongoing arrhythmia did not result in better short- or mid-term outcome in patients undergoing AAF ablation. Furthermore, based on our results inducing AAF seems a legitimate approach for AAF ablation in patients presenting in sinus rhythm.

Keywords

• Outcome
• Induction
• Atypical atrial flutter