Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2022
Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Who is the best candidate?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Yu Lu, Jiang Ruhong, Sun Yaxun, Ye Yang, Zhang Pei, Liu Qiang, Sheng Xia, Zhang Zuwen, Chen Shiquan, Fu Guosheng, Jiang Chenyang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is poorly recognized pre-ablation. It remains unclear of better patient selection and timing for catheter ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) with heart failure (HF).
METHODS: Consecutive patients with PerAF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% referred for AF ablation were retrospectively included. The impact of LV size, heart rate (HR), and LVEF pre-ablation were analyzed for assessing LV systolic function recovery, defined as LVEF increase of ≥20% or to a value ≥55% after ablation.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (2017-2020) were included. After 19 ±14 months post ablation, LVEF improvement was similar in patients with normal or dilated LV (18.3 ± 9.4% vs. 16.1 ± 10.8%, P = .25), rapid or controlled HR (19.5 ± 10% vs. 16.1 ± 10%, P = .09), but higher in HFrEF (HF with reduced EF) than HFmrEF (HF with midrange EF) (21.6 ± 10.3% vs. 14.9 ± 9.3%, P < .01). There was more LV systolic function recovery in those with normal to moderate LV dilation (80%, odds ratio [OR] 15.22, P < .01), HR ≥80 bpm (79%, OR 5.38, P < .01) and HFmrEF (80%, OR 4.03, P < .01). The overall AF freedom was similar between normal and dilated LV (59% vs. 62%, P = .95), rapid and controlled HR (67% vs. 56%, P = .18), and HFmrEF and HFrEF (65% vs. 50%, P = .19).
CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation is effective independent of LV dilation, rate control or HFrEF. Patients with normal to moderate LV dilation, resting HR ≥80 bpm and HFmrEF may be candidates for early PerAF ablation to achieve LVEF normalization.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with PerAF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% referred for AF ablation were retrospectively included. The impact of LV size, heart rate (HR), and LVEF pre-ablation were analyzed for assessing LV systolic function recovery, defined as LVEF increase of ≥20% or to a value ≥55% after ablation.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (2017-2020) were included. After 19 ±14 months post ablation, LVEF improvement was similar in patients with normal or dilated LV (18.3 ± 9.4% vs. 16.1 ± 10.8%, P = .25), rapid or controlled HR (19.5 ± 10% vs. 16.1 ± 10%, P = .09), but higher in HFrEF (HF with reduced EF) than HFmrEF (HF with midrange EF) (21.6 ± 10.3% vs. 14.9 ± 9.3%, P < .01). There was more LV systolic function recovery in those with normal to moderate LV dilation (80%, odds ratio [OR] 15.22, P < .01), HR ≥80 bpm (79%, OR 5.38, P < .01) and HFmrEF (80%, OR 4.03, P < .01). The overall AF freedom was similar between normal and dilated LV (59% vs. 62%, P = .95), rapid and controlled HR (67% vs. 56%, P = .18), and HFmrEF and HFrEF (65% vs. 50%, P = .19).
CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation is effective independent of LV dilation, rate control or HFrEF. Patients with normal to moderate LV dilation, resting HR ≥80 bpm and HFmrEF may be candidates for early PerAF ablation to achieve LVEF normalization.