International journal of cardiology · 2021
Impact of myocardial injury and inflammation due to ablation on the short-term and mid-term outcomes: Cryoballoon versus laser balloon ablation.
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.
Yano Masamichi, Egami Yasuyuki, Ukita Kohei, Kawamura Akito, Nakamura Hitoshi, Matsuhiro Yutaka, Yasumoto Koji, Tsuda Masaki, Okamoto Naotaka, Matsunaga-Lee Yasuharu, Shutta Ryu, Nishino Masami, Tanouchi Jun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and laser balloon ablation (LBA) were developed as alternatives to conventional radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Pathological findings after ablation such as myocardial injury and inflammation are thought to be different between CBA and LBA. However, the different impact of myocardial injury and inflammation after ablation on short- and mid-term outcomes remains unclear.
METHODS: Consecutive PAF patients who underwent CBA and LBA were enrolled from the Osaka Rosai Atrial Fibrillation ablation (ORAF) registry. The difference of the acute myocardial injury marker (hs-TnI), and changes of inflammation markers (C reactive protein; ΔCRP, and white blood cell; ΔWBC) after catheter ablation and the difference of the short-term (within 3 months after ablation) and mid-term (from 3 months to 6 months after ablation) outcomes were evaluated between the two groups.
RESULTS: The CBA and LBA groups consisted of 55 and 56 patients, respectively. After propensity score matching, CBA and LBA groups consisted of 37 patients, respectively. Hs-TnI value was significantly higher in CBA than LBA group, while ΔCRP and ΔWBC were significantly higher in LBA than CBA group. In the propensity score-matched pairs, the LBA group had a significantly greater risk of short-term arrhythmia recurrence than the CBA group, whereas no significant difference of mid-term arrhythmia recurrence were found between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Myocardial injury and inflammation status differ between CBA and LBA groups. LBA group had stronger inflammation after ablation and had a significantly greater risk of short-term arrhythmia recurrence after PVI than CBA group.
METHODS: Consecutive PAF patients who underwent CBA and LBA were enrolled from the Osaka Rosai Atrial Fibrillation ablation (ORAF) registry. The difference of the acute myocardial injury marker (hs-TnI), and changes of inflammation markers (C reactive protein; ΔCRP, and white blood cell; ΔWBC) after catheter ablation and the difference of the short-term (within 3 months after ablation) and mid-term (from 3 months to 6 months after ablation) outcomes were evaluated between the two groups.
RESULTS: The CBA and LBA groups consisted of 55 and 56 patients, respectively. After propensity score matching, CBA and LBA groups consisted of 37 patients, respectively. Hs-TnI value was significantly higher in CBA than LBA group, while ΔCRP and ΔWBC were significantly higher in LBA than CBA group. In the propensity score-matched pairs, the LBA group had a significantly greater risk of short-term arrhythmia recurrence than the CBA group, whereas no significant difference of mid-term arrhythmia recurrence were found between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Myocardial injury and inflammation status differ between CBA and LBA groups. LBA group had stronger inflammation after ablation and had a significantly greater risk of short-term arrhythmia recurrence after PVI than CBA group.