International journal of cardiology · 2018
Dispersion-guided ablation in conjunction with circumferential pulmonary vein isolation is superior to stepwise ablation approach 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.
Lin Rongjie, Zeng Cong, Xu Kai, Wu Shaohui, Qin Mu, Liu Xu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of optimal ablation strategy, the success rate of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is still low. We hypothesize that a strategy that targeting pulmonary triggers and dispersion areas in atria improves prognosis of persistent AF.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 142 persistent AF patients admitted for catheter ablation. These patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to ablation with circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) + ablation of electrogram dispersion areas (71 patients, group A) or stepwise ablation strategy (71 patients, group B).
RESULTS: Procedural time and fluoroscopy time did not differ between group A and group B (204.6 ± 26.9 min vs 207.8 ± 26.3 min and 7.3 ± 1.3 min vs 7.1 ± 1.3 min, respectively, P > 0.05), however, radiofrequency delivery time in group A was significantly shorter than that in group B (70 ± 7.2 min vs 83.2 ± 9.1 min, P < 0.001). In total, 265 electrogram dispersion areas were identified in 67 patients, and the most prominent areas were roof, bottom, and inferoposterior wall. The rates of acute AF endpoint (including AF termination and AFCL elongation >30 ms) and termination in group A were significantly higher than that in group B (97.2% vs. 71.8% and 70.4% vs. 15.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). During a follow-up period of 204 ± 67 days, both AF-free and AF/AT-free survival in group A were significantly higher than that in group B (P = 0.012 and P = 0.014, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Dispersion-guided ablation in conjunction with CPVI is efficient, personalized, and accurate for persistent AF.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 142 persistent AF patients admitted for catheter ablation. These patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to ablation with circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) + ablation of electrogram dispersion areas (71 patients, group A) or stepwise ablation strategy (71 patients, group B).
RESULTS: Procedural time and fluoroscopy time did not differ between group A and group B (204.6 ± 26.9 min vs 207.8 ± 26.3 min and 7.3 ± 1.3 min vs 7.1 ± 1.3 min, respectively, P > 0.05), however, radiofrequency delivery time in group A was significantly shorter than that in group B (70 ± 7.2 min vs 83.2 ± 9.1 min, P < 0.001). In total, 265 electrogram dispersion areas were identified in 67 patients, and the most prominent areas were roof, bottom, and inferoposterior wall. The rates of acute AF endpoint (including AF termination and AFCL elongation >30 ms) and termination in group A were significantly higher than that in group B (97.2% vs. 71.8% and 70.4% vs. 15.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). During a follow-up period of 204 ± 67 days, both AF-free and AF/AT-free survival in group A were significantly higher than that in group B (P = 0.012 and P = 0.014, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Dispersion-guided ablation in conjunction with CPVI is efficient, personalized, and accurate for persistent AF.