BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024
Comparison between catheter ablation versus permanent pacemaker implantation as an initial treatment for tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome patients: a prospective, randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Cho Min Soo, Lee Ji Hyun, Nam Gi-Byoung, Hwang Ki Won, Cha Myung-Jin, Kim Jun, Choi Kee-Joon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes after catheter ablation (CA) or pacemaker (PM) implantation for the tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome (TBS) has not been evaluated adequately. We tried to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of CA and PM implantation as an initial treatment option for TBS in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.
METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS (mean 63.7 years, 63.2% male) were randomized, and received CA (n = 35) or PM (n = 33) as initial treatments. The primary outcomes were unexpected emergency room visits or hospitalizations attributed to cardiovascular causes.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treatment analysis, the rates of primary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at the 2-year follow-up (19.8% vs. 25.9%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-2.20, P = 0.584), irrespective of whether the results were adjusted for age (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.34-3.64, P = 0.852). The 2-year rate of recurrent AF was significantly lower in the CA group compared to the PM group (33.9% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.038). Four patients (11.4%) in the CA group finally received PMs after CA owing to recurrent syncope episodes. The rate of major or minor procedure related complications was not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: CA had a similar efficacy and safety profile with that of PM and a higher sinus rhythm maintenance rate. CA could be considered as a preferable initial treatment option over PM implantation in patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0000155.
METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS (mean 63.7 years, 63.2% male) were randomized, and received CA (n = 35) or PM (n = 33) as initial treatments. The primary outcomes were unexpected emergency room visits or hospitalizations attributed to cardiovascular causes.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treatment analysis, the rates of primary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at the 2-year follow-up (19.8% vs. 25.9%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-2.20, P = 0.584), irrespective of whether the results were adjusted for age (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.34-3.64, P = 0.852). The 2-year rate of recurrent AF was significantly lower in the CA group compared to the PM group (33.9% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.038). Four patients (11.4%) in the CA group finally received PMs after CA owing to recurrent syncope episodes. The rate of major or minor procedure related complications was not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: CA had a similar efficacy and safety profile with that of PM and a higher sinus rhythm maintenance rate. CA could be considered as a preferable initial treatment option over PM implantation in patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0000155.