Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2018
Long-Term Clinical Comparison of Procedural End Points After Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Elimination of Nonpulmonary Vein Triggers Versus Noninducibility.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lee Kwang-No, Roh Seung-Young, Baek Yong-Soo, Park Hee-Soon, Ahn Jinhee, Kim Dong-Hyeok, Lee Dae In, Shim Jaemin, Choi Jong-Il, Park Sang-Weon, Kim Young-Hoon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is effective for maintenance of sinus rhythm in 50% to 75% of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and it is not uncommon for patients to require additional ablation after PVI. We prospectively evaluated the relative effectiveness of 2 post-PVI ablation strategies in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 500 patients (mean age, 55.7±11.0 years; 74.6% male) were randomly assigned to undergo ablation by 2 different strategies after PVI: (1) elimination of non-PV triggers (group A, n=250) or (2) stepwise substrate modification including complex fractionated atrial electrogram or linear ablation until noninducibility of atrial tachyarrhythmia was achieved (group B, n=250). During a median follow-up of 26.0 months, 75 (32.2%) patients experienced at least 1 episode of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia after the single procedure in group A compared with 105 (43.8%) patients in group B (P value in log-rank test of Kaplan-Meier analysis: 0.012). Competing risk analysis showed that the cumulative incidence of atrial tachycardia was significantly higher in group B compared with group A (P=0.007). With the exception of total ablation time, there were no significant differences in fluoroscopic time or procedure-related complications between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Elimination of triggers as an end point of ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation decreased long-term recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia compared with a noninducibility approach achieved by additional empirical ablation. The post-PVI trigger test is thus a better end point of ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 500 patients (mean age, 55.7±11.0 years; 74.6% male) were randomly assigned to undergo ablation by 2 different strategies after PVI: (1) elimination of non-PV triggers (group A, n=250) or (2) stepwise substrate modification including complex fractionated atrial electrogram or linear ablation until noninducibility of atrial tachyarrhythmia was achieved (group B, n=250). During a median follow-up of 26.0 months, 75 (32.2%) patients experienced at least 1 episode of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia after the single procedure in group A compared with 105 (43.8%) patients in group B (P value in log-rank test of Kaplan-Meier analysis: 0.012). Competing risk analysis showed that the cumulative incidence of atrial tachycardia was significantly higher in group B compared with group A (P=0.007). With the exception of total ablation time, there were no significant differences in fluoroscopic time or procedure-related complications between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Elimination of triggers as an end point of ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation decreased long-term recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia compared with a noninducibility approach achieved by additional empirical ablation. The post-PVI trigger test is thus a better end point of ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.