Cardiology research and practice · 2019
Low-Dose Ibutilide Combined with Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Procedural Impact and Clinical Outcome.
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.
Sun Xue-Rong, Tian Ying, Shah Ashok, Yin Xian-Dong, Shi Liang, Wang Yan-Jiang, Liu Xiao-Qing, Hocini Meleze, Haissaguerre Michel, Yang Xin-Chun, Liu Xing-Peng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), the procedural and clinical outcomes of ablation combined with infusion of antiarrhythmic drug are unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of low-dose ibutilide after circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) and/or left atrial (LA) substrate modification on acute procedural and clinical outcome of persistent AF.
METHODS: In a prospective cohort of 135 consecutive patients with persistent AF, intravenous 0.25 mg ibutilide was administered 3 days before the procedure and intraprocedurally, if required, after CPVI and/or additional LA substrate modification of sites with continuous, rapid or fractionated, and low-voltage (0.05-0.3 mv) atrial activity.
RESULTS: Persistent AF was terminated by CPVI alone (n=15) or CPVI + ibutilide (n=32) in 47 (34.8%) patients (CPVI responders). Additional LA substrate modification without (n=33) or with subsequent administration of 0.25 mg ibutilide (n=19) terminated AF in another 52 (38.5%) patients (substrate modification responders). Sinus rhythm was restored by electrical cardioversion in the remaining 36 (26.7%) patients (nonresponders). The mean LA substrate ablation time was 14 ± 6 minutes. At follow-up of 24 ± 10 months, the rates of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias among the responders in CPVI and substrate modification groups were mutually comparable (66.0% and 69.2%) and higher than among the nonresponders (36.1%; P < 0.01). Among the responders, there was no difference in clinical outcome between patients whose persistent AF was terminated without or with low-dose ibutilide.
CONCLUSION: Administration of low-dose ibutilide during ablation of persistent AF may allow select patients wherein substrate ablation is not or minimally required to optimize procedural and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of low-dose ibutilide after circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) and/or left atrial (LA) substrate modification on acute procedural and clinical outcome of persistent AF.
METHODS: In a prospective cohort of 135 consecutive patients with persistent AF, intravenous 0.25 mg ibutilide was administered 3 days before the procedure and intraprocedurally, if required, after CPVI and/or additional LA substrate modification of sites with continuous, rapid or fractionated, and low-voltage (0.05-0.3 mv) atrial activity.
RESULTS: Persistent AF was terminated by CPVI alone (n=15) or CPVI + ibutilide (n=32) in 47 (34.8%) patients (CPVI responders). Additional LA substrate modification without (n=33) or with subsequent administration of 0.25 mg ibutilide (n=19) terminated AF in another 52 (38.5%) patients (substrate modification responders). Sinus rhythm was restored by electrical cardioversion in the remaining 36 (26.7%) patients (nonresponders). The mean LA substrate ablation time was 14 ± 6 minutes. At follow-up of 24 ± 10 months, the rates of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias among the responders in CPVI and substrate modification groups were mutually comparable (66.0% and 69.2%) and higher than among the nonresponders (36.1%; P < 0.01). Among the responders, there was no difference in clinical outcome between patients whose persistent AF was terminated without or with low-dose ibutilide.
CONCLUSION: Administration of low-dose ibutilide during ablation of persistent AF may allow select patients wherein substrate ablation is not or minimally required to optimize procedural and clinical outcomes.