Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2020
Role of inducibility and its dynamic change in the outcome of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a single center prospective study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Darma Angeliki, Daneschnejad Sait S, Gaspar Thomas, Huo Yan, Wetzel Ulrike, Dagres Nikolaos, Husser Daniela, Sommer Philipp, Piorkowski Christopher, Bollmann Andreas, Hindricks Gerhard, Arya Arash
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The role of atrial arrhythmia inducibility as an endpoint of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been a controversial subject in many studies. Our goal is to evaluate the significance of inducibility, the impact of multiple sites or protocols of stimulation or the change in inducibility status in a prospective study including patients with AF undergoing first catheter ablation.
METHODS: We studied 170 consecutive patients with AF (62.9% paroxysmal) undergoing catheter ablation. All patients underwent two separate stimulation protocols before and after the ablation from the coronary sinus ostium and the left atrial appendage: burst pacing at 300, 250, 200 milliseconds (or until refractoriness) for 10 seconds and ramp decrementing from 300 to 200 milliseconds in increments of 10 milliseconds every three beats for 10 seconds. Inducibility was defined as any sustained AF or organized atrial tachycardia (AT) lasting >30 seconds.
RESULTS: We had AF/AT inducibility in 55 patients at baseline compared to 36 following ablation. After a mean of 41, 3 months follow-up, 115 patients were free of AF. Inducibility before or after the ablation or change in inducibility status did not influence AF recurrence. There were no significant differences regarding paroxysmal or persistent patients with AF.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-inducibility of atrial arrhythmia or change in inducibility status following pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and substrate modification are not associated with long-term freedom from recurrent arrhythmia. Therefore, the use of induction of an endpoint in AF ablation is limited.
METHODS: We studied 170 consecutive patients with AF (62.9% paroxysmal) undergoing catheter ablation. All patients underwent two separate stimulation protocols before and after the ablation from the coronary sinus ostium and the left atrial appendage: burst pacing at 300, 250, 200 milliseconds (or until refractoriness) for 10 seconds and ramp decrementing from 300 to 200 milliseconds in increments of 10 milliseconds every three beats for 10 seconds. Inducibility was defined as any sustained AF or organized atrial tachycardia (AT) lasting >30 seconds.
RESULTS: We had AF/AT inducibility in 55 patients at baseline compared to 36 following ablation. After a mean of 41, 3 months follow-up, 115 patients were free of AF. Inducibility before or after the ablation or change in inducibility status did not influence AF recurrence. There were no significant differences regarding paroxysmal or persistent patients with AF.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-inducibility of atrial arrhythmia or change in inducibility status following pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and substrate modification are not associated with long-term freedom from recurrent arrhythmia. Therefore, the use of induction of an endpoint in AF ablation is limited.