Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021
Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage electrical isolation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Romero Jorge, Gabr Mohamed, Patel Kavisha, Briceno David, Diaz Juan Carlos, Alviz Isabella, Trivedi Chintan, Mohanty Sanghamitra, Polanco Dalvert, Della Rocca Domenico Giovanni, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya, Natale Andrea, Di Biase Luigi
Аннотация
AIMS: Left atrial appendage electrical isolation (LAAEI) has been shown to improve freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety outcomes of LAAEI in patients with non-paroxysmal AF undergoing catheter ablation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for clinical studies evaluating the benefit of LAAEI in non-paroxysmal AF. Nine studies with a total of 2336 patients were included (mean age: 65 ± 9 years, 63% male). All studies included patients with persistent AF, long-standing persistent AF, or both. At a mean follow-up of 40.5 months, patients who underwent LAAEI had significantly higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence than patients who underwent standard ablation alone [69.3% vs. 46.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.69; P < 0.0001]. A 46% relative risk reduction and 22.9% absolute risk reduction in atrial-arrhythmia recurrence was noted with LAAEI. Rates of cerebral thromboembolism were not significantly different between the two groups (LAAEI 3% vs. standard ablation 1.6%, respectively; RR 1.76; 95% CI 0.61-5.04; P = 0.29). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the acute procedural complication rates between the two groups (LAAEI 4% vs. standard ablation 3%, respectively; RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83-2.02; P = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, LAAEI led to a significantly higher improvement in freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with non-paroxysmal AF, when compared to standard ablation alone. Importantly, this benefit was achieved without an increased risk of acute procedural complications or cerebral thromboembolic events.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for clinical studies evaluating the benefit of LAAEI in non-paroxysmal AF. Nine studies with a total of 2336 patients were included (mean age: 65 ± 9 years, 63% male). All studies included patients with persistent AF, long-standing persistent AF, or both. At a mean follow-up of 40.5 months, patients who underwent LAAEI had significantly higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence than patients who underwent standard ablation alone [69.3% vs. 46.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.69; P < 0.0001]. A 46% relative risk reduction and 22.9% absolute risk reduction in atrial-arrhythmia recurrence was noted with LAAEI. Rates of cerebral thromboembolism were not significantly different between the two groups (LAAEI 3% vs. standard ablation 1.6%, respectively; RR 1.76; 95% CI 0.61-5.04; P = 0.29). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the acute procedural complication rates between the two groups (LAAEI 4% vs. standard ablation 3%, respectively; RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83-2.02; P = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, LAAEI led to a significantly higher improvement in freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with non-paroxysmal AF, when compared to standard ablation alone. Importantly, this benefit was achieved without an increased risk of acute procedural complications or cerebral thromboembolic events.