International journal of cardiology · 2017
Conduction recovery following catheter ablation in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anselmino Matteo, Matta Mario, Bunch T Jared, Fiala Martin, Scaglione Marco, Nölker Georg, Qian Pierre, Neumann Thomas, Ferraris Federico, Gaita Fiorenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is increasingly proposed for patients suffering from AF and concomitant heart failure (HF). However, the optimal ablation strategy remains controversial. We performed this study to assess the prevalence of pulmonary vein (PV) or linear lesion reconnection in HF patients undergoing repeated procedures.
METHODS AND RESULTS: At seven high-volume centres, 165 patients with HF underwent a repeat procedure after a first AF ablation including PV isolation alone (47 patients, group A) or PV isolation plus left atrial lines (118 patients, group B). Group A patients presented more often paroxysmal AF (p<0.001), less enlarged left atrium (p<0.001) and less left ventricular systolic dysfunction (p=0.031) compared to Group B, that more commonly had atypical atrial flutter (p<0.001). Forty-one (87%) patients in Group A and 69 (58%) in Group B presented at least one reconnected PV (p<0.001). Sixty-one (52%) patients in Group B presented at least one reconnected atrial line (left isthmus or roof). Patients without any reconnected PV (n=54, 33%) more frequently experienced persistent AF (p<0.001), had longer AF duration (p=0.047) and larger left atrial volume (p<0.001). Twenty-five patients (15%) with no PV and/or line reconnection did not significantly differ, concerning baseline characteristics, compared to those with at least one reconnected ablation site.
CONCLUSION: As in the general AF population undergoing catheter ablation, PV reconnection is frequent in patients with HF and symptomatic recurrence. However, one third of patients presented arrhythmic recurrences even in the absence of PV reconnection, highlighting the importance of the underlying atrial substrate.
METHODS AND RESULTS: At seven high-volume centres, 165 patients with HF underwent a repeat procedure after a first AF ablation including PV isolation alone (47 patients, group A) or PV isolation plus left atrial lines (118 patients, group B). Group A patients presented more often paroxysmal AF (p<0.001), less enlarged left atrium (p<0.001) and less left ventricular systolic dysfunction (p=0.031) compared to Group B, that more commonly had atypical atrial flutter (p<0.001). Forty-one (87%) patients in Group A and 69 (58%) in Group B presented at least one reconnected PV (p<0.001). Sixty-one (52%) patients in Group B presented at least one reconnected atrial line (left isthmus or roof). Patients without any reconnected PV (n=54, 33%) more frequently experienced persistent AF (p<0.001), had longer AF duration (p=0.047) and larger left atrial volume (p<0.001). Twenty-five patients (15%) with no PV and/or line reconnection did not significantly differ, concerning baseline characteristics, compared to those with at least one reconnected ablation site.
CONCLUSION: As in the general AF population undergoing catheter ablation, PV reconnection is frequent in patients with HF and symptomatic recurrence. However, one third of patients presented arrhythmic recurrences even in the absence of PV reconnection, highlighting the importance of the underlying atrial substrate.