Heart rhythm · 2024
High-frequency low-tidal volume ventilation improves procedural and long-term clinical outcomes in persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: Prospective multicenter registry.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Osorio Jose, Hincapie Daniela, Varley Allyson L, Silverstein Joshua R, Matos Carlos D, Thosani Amit J, Thorne Christopher, D'Souza Benjamin, Alviz Isabella, Gabr Mohamed, Rajendra Anil, Oza Saumil, Sharma Dinesh, Hoyos Carolina, Singleton Matthew J, Mareddy Chinmaya, Velasco Alejandro, Zei Paul C, Sauer William H, Romero Jorge E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: High-frequency, low-tidal volume (HFLTV) ventilation increases the efficacy and efficiency of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Whether those benefits can be extrapolated to RFCA of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) is undetermined.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether using HFLTV ventilation during RFCA in patients with PeAF is associated with improved procedural and long-term clinical outcomes compared to standard ventilation (SV).
METHODS: In this prospective multicenter registry (REAL-AF), patients who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + posterior wall isolation (PWI) for PeAF using either HFLTV ventilation or SV were included. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included procedural and long-term clinical outcomes and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were included (HFLTV=95 vs. SV=115) in the analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Procedural time (80 [66-103.5] minutes vs 110 [85-141] minutes; P <.001), total radiofrequency (RF) time (18.73 [13.93-26.53] minutes vs 26.15 [20.30-35.25] minutes; P <.001), and pulmonary vein RF time (11.35 [8.78-16.69] minutes vs 18 [13.74-24.14] minutes; P <.001) were significantly shorter using HFLTV ventilation compared with SV. Freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher with HFLTV ventilation compared with SV (82.1% vs 68.7%; hazard ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval [0.21-0.82]; P = .012), indicating a 43% relative risk reduction and a 13.4% absolute risk reduction in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence. There was no difference in long-term procedure-related complications between the groups (HFLTV 1.1% vs SV 0%, P = .270).
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing RFCA with PVI + PWI for PeAF, the use of HFLTV ventilation was associated with higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up, with significantly shorter procedural and RF times compared to SV, while reporting a similar safety profile.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether using HFLTV ventilation during RFCA in patients with PeAF is associated with improved procedural and long-term clinical outcomes compared to standard ventilation (SV).
METHODS: In this prospective multicenter registry (REAL-AF), patients who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + posterior wall isolation (PWI) for PeAF using either HFLTV ventilation or SV were included. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included procedural and long-term clinical outcomes and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were included (HFLTV=95 vs. SV=115) in the analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Procedural time (80 [66-103.5] minutes vs 110 [85-141] minutes; P <.001), total radiofrequency (RF) time (18.73 [13.93-26.53] minutes vs 26.15 [20.30-35.25] minutes; P <.001), and pulmonary vein RF time (11.35 [8.78-16.69] minutes vs 18 [13.74-24.14] minutes; P <.001) were significantly shorter using HFLTV ventilation compared with SV. Freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher with HFLTV ventilation compared with SV (82.1% vs 68.7%; hazard ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval [0.21-0.82]; P = .012), indicating a 43% relative risk reduction and a 13.4% absolute risk reduction in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence. There was no difference in long-term procedure-related complications between the groups (HFLTV 1.1% vs SV 0%, P = .270).
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing RFCA with PVI + PWI for PeAF, the use of HFLTV ventilation was associated with higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up, with significantly shorter procedural and RF times compared to SV, while reporting a similar safety profile.