Clinical, electrophysiological and imaging predictors of atrial fibrillation ablation outcome

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Significant technological advances for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have occurred over the last decade, with a consequent increase in numbers of patients referred for AF ablation worldwide. Despite this, long-term success rates, particularly in those with persistent AF, remain modest. The patient population presenting for AF ablation are heterogeneous with regard to age, type of AF and presence of associated cardiovascular disease. Improved understanding of factors predicting response to AF ablation may therefore help to improve patient selection for ablation procedures.

Areas covered: This review outlines the clinical, electrophysiological and imaging predictors of response to radiofrequency ablation for AF in contemporary practice. Recently developed scoring systems incorporating these parameters are examined, as are factors identified thus far which may predict the outcome of cryoballoon ablation.

Expert commentary: Traditional clinical factors associated with ablation outcomes serve as surrogates rather than direct measures of the underlying arrhythmia substrate. An improved understanding of this substrate could improve the prediction of response to radiofrequency ablation. Continued development of methods for characterising the arrhythmia substrate, including atrial cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and invasive voltage mapping, may inform patient risk assessment and help guide selection for catheter ablation on an increasingly individualistic basis.

KEYWORDS:

• Atrial fibrillation
• catheter ablation
• electrophysiology
• imaging
• outcomes

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.