Journal of arrhythmia · 2016
The feasibility of a Box isolation strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in elderly patients.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Higuchi Satoshi, Sohara Hiroshi, Nakamura Yoshinori, Ihara Minoru, Yamaguchi Yoshio, Shoda Morio, Hagiwara Nobuhisa, Satake Shutaro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (non-PAF) is a therapeutic challenge especially in elderly patients. This study describes the feasibility of a posterior left atrium isolation as a substrate modification in addition to pulmonary vein isolation, the so-called Box isolation, for elderly patients with non-PAF.
METHODS: Two hundred twenty-nine consecutive patients who underwent Box isolations for drug-refractory non-PAF were divided into two groups according to their age; younger group comprising 175 patients aged <75 years and elderly group comprising 54 patients aged ≥75 years.
RESULTS: During 23.7±12.0 months of follow-up, the arrhythmia-free rates after one procedure were 53.1% in younger group versus 48.1% in elderly group (p=0.50). Following the second procedure, all patients had electrical conduction recoveries along the initial Box lesion. However, a complete Box re-isolation was highly established in both age groups (87.1% vs. 92.9%, respectively; p=1.00). Recurrence of macro-reentrant atrial tachycardia was mainly associated with the gaps through the initial Box lesion in both age groups (25.8% vs. 21.4%, p=1.00), but typical cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent atrial flutter was significantly observed in the elderly patients' group only (all events were observed within 6 months after the initial procedure; 3.2% vs. 28.6%, p=0.009). After two procedures, the arrhythmia-free rates increased to 73.1% in younger group versus 66.7% in elderly group (p=0.38). The occurrence rate of procedural-related complications did not differ between the two age groups, and there were no life-threatening complications even in elderly patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Box isolation of non-PAF is effective and safe even in elderly patients. A prophylactic CTI ablation combined with Box isolation might be feasible to improve the long-term outcome.
METHODS: Two hundred twenty-nine consecutive patients who underwent Box isolations for drug-refractory non-PAF were divided into two groups according to their age; younger group comprising 175 patients aged <75 years and elderly group comprising 54 patients aged ≥75 years.
RESULTS: During 23.7±12.0 months of follow-up, the arrhythmia-free rates after one procedure were 53.1% in younger group versus 48.1% in elderly group (p=0.50). Following the second procedure, all patients had electrical conduction recoveries along the initial Box lesion. However, a complete Box re-isolation was highly established in both age groups (87.1% vs. 92.9%, respectively; p=1.00). Recurrence of macro-reentrant atrial tachycardia was mainly associated with the gaps through the initial Box lesion in both age groups (25.8% vs. 21.4%, p=1.00), but typical cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent atrial flutter was significantly observed in the elderly patients' group only (all events were observed within 6 months after the initial procedure; 3.2% vs. 28.6%, p=0.009). After two procedures, the arrhythmia-free rates increased to 73.1% in younger group versus 66.7% in elderly group (p=0.38). The occurrence rate of procedural-related complications did not differ between the two age groups, and there were no life-threatening complications even in elderly patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Box isolation of non-PAF is effective and safe even in elderly patients. A prophylactic CTI ablation combined with Box isolation might be feasible to improve the long-term outcome.