Stand-alone Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) ablation versus second-generation cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Introduction Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) guided catheter ablation aiming at stable rotors has been investigated as a treatment option in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of FIRM-guided ablation with second-generation cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (CB2-PVI) in paroxysmal AF. Methods Consecutive patients (n = 22, mean age 60 +/- 11 years, 59.1% of males) who were treated with a stand-alone FIRM-guided ablation were included in this retrospective single-center study. Procedural data and arrhythmia-free survival at 12 months were compared with n = 86 consecutive patients (mean age 62 +/- 13 years, 62.4% of males) who received de-novo CB2-PVI. Results Median procedure duration was significantly longer in the FIRM group than in the CB2-PVI group (152 [IQR 120-176] minutes vs. 122 [110-145] minutes; p = .031). One patient (1.2%) in the CB2-PVI group and five patients (22.7%) in the FIRM group had vascular access complications. Atrial tachyarrhythmias recurred in 15 patients in the FIRM group and 11 in the CB2-PVI group. Kaplan-Meier estimation of single-procedure arrhythmia-free survival at 12 months was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-44%) in the FIRM group and 87% (95% CI 78%-96%) in the CB2-PVI group (p < .001). Repeat ablations were performed in 14/20 (70.0%) patients in the FIRM group and in 12/85 (14.1%) in the CB2-PVI group (p < .001). Conclusion De novo ablation of AF using FIRM-guided AF ablation results in shorter arrhythmia-free survival after 12 months compared to CB2-PVI and a need for repeat ablation in the majority of patients to achieve stable sinus rhythm.