Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2020
Clinical impact of eliminating nonpulmonary vein triggers of atrial fibrillation and nonpulmonary vein premature atrial contractions at initial ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.
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.
Tohoku Shota, Fukunaga Masato, Nagashima Michio, Korai Kengo, Hirokami Jun, Yamamoto Kei, Takeo Ayaka, Niu Harushi, Ando Kenji, Hiroshima Kenichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The role of nonpulmonary vein (PV) triggers ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PEAF) was suggested but it is still under debate.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-PV trigger-targeted ablation for patients with PEAF.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with PEAF undergoing catheter ablation (CA) between January 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled. Isoproterenol plus adenosine challenge was performed to provoke non-PV triggers. Non-PV triggers were defined as the trigger beats inducing AF (non-PV AF triggers) and/or frequent premature contractions (non-PV PACs) from other than PVs. Three groups were defined: Group 1 (n = 186) without non-PV triggers; Group 2 (n = 65) with non-PV triggers that could be completely eliminated with CA; Group 3 (n = 49) with non-PV triggers still inducible after CA. The primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (230 males, age 64 ± 10) were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 27 ± 10 months. Freedom from ATa recurrence at 1 and 2 years were significantly lower in Group 3 compared to the other two groups (Group 1; 74.7%, 67.2% vs. Group 2; 75.8%, 68.3% vs. Group 3: 52.1%, 38.6%, p = .0005), irrespective of the type of non-PV triggers (non-PV AF triggers vs. non-PV PACs). On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful elimination of non-PV triggers was an independent predictor for ATa recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.80, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.95, p = .026).
CONCLUSION: Successful non-PV triggers elimination can improve the ATa recurrence rate in PEAF ablation. ATa recurrence rate is higher, if non-PV AF triggers or even non-PV PACs remain in patients with PEAF.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-PV trigger-targeted ablation for patients with PEAF.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with PEAF undergoing catheter ablation (CA) between January 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled. Isoproterenol plus adenosine challenge was performed to provoke non-PV triggers. Non-PV triggers were defined as the trigger beats inducing AF (non-PV AF triggers) and/or frequent premature contractions (non-PV PACs) from other than PVs. Three groups were defined: Group 1 (n = 186) without non-PV triggers; Group 2 (n = 65) with non-PV triggers that could be completely eliminated with CA; Group 3 (n = 49) with non-PV triggers still inducible after CA. The primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (230 males, age 64 ± 10) were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 27 ± 10 months. Freedom from ATa recurrence at 1 and 2 years were significantly lower in Group 3 compared to the other two groups (Group 1; 74.7%, 67.2% vs. Group 2; 75.8%, 68.3% vs. Group 3: 52.1%, 38.6%, p = .0005), irrespective of the type of non-PV triggers (non-PV AF triggers vs. non-PV PACs). On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful elimination of non-PV triggers was an independent predictor for ATa recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.80, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.95, p = .026).
CONCLUSION: Successful non-PV triggers elimination can improve the ATa recurrence rate in PEAF ablation. ATa recurrence rate is higher, if non-PV AF triggers or even non-PV PACs remain in patients with PEAF.