Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2018
Utility of acute arrhythmia termination as an ablation endpoint for induced atrial tachyarrhythmia after complete pulmonary vein isolation during catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Choi Young, Kim Sung-Hwan, Kim Ju Youn, Kim Yoo Ri, Kim Tae-Seok, Hwang Youmi, Kim Ji-Hoon, Jang Sung-Won, Lee Man Young, Rho Tai-Ho, Oh Yong-Seog
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The presence of inducible atrial tachyarrhythmia after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) may indicate the necessity of further substrate modification, but the optimal ablation endpoint is unknown. We sought to assess the impact of procedural termination of inducible atrial tachyarrhythmia after PVI in comparison with continued atrial tachyarrhythmia after PVI.
METHODS: Among patients who underwent RFCA for persistent AF, we enrolled 93 patients who were in sinus rhythm after PVI and had inducible atrial tachyarrhythmia and 157 patients with continued atrial tachyarrhythmia after PVI. The impact of acute arrhythmia termination during further substrate modification on recurrence was compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Acute termination was achieved in 51 (54.8%) patients in the induced arrhythmia group and 61 (38.9%) in the continued arrhythmia group. During a mean 35.8 months, acute termination did not significantly reduce arrhythmia recurrence in the induced arrhythmia group (HR 0.712, 95% CI 0.400-1.266, p = 0.247), while it was associated with improved outcome in the continued arrhythmia group (HR 0.590, 95% CI 0.355-0.979, p = 0.038). Acute termination of either induced atrial tachycardia (AT) or induced AF was not associated with improved procedure outcome. Among the continued arrhythmia group, the benefit of acute termination was statistically significant in AT (HR 0.329, 95% CI 0.108-0.997, p = 0.039), but not in AF (HR 0.704, 95% CI 0.396-1.253, p = 0.233) after PVI.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute termination of induced rhythm is not a reliable ablation endpoint during substrate modification in patients with inducible arrhythmia after PVI.
METHODS: Among patients who underwent RFCA for persistent AF, we enrolled 93 patients who were in sinus rhythm after PVI and had inducible atrial tachyarrhythmia and 157 patients with continued atrial tachyarrhythmia after PVI. The impact of acute arrhythmia termination during further substrate modification on recurrence was compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Acute termination was achieved in 51 (54.8%) patients in the induced arrhythmia group and 61 (38.9%) in the continued arrhythmia group. During a mean 35.8 months, acute termination did not significantly reduce arrhythmia recurrence in the induced arrhythmia group (HR 0.712, 95% CI 0.400-1.266, p = 0.247), while it was associated with improved outcome in the continued arrhythmia group (HR 0.590, 95% CI 0.355-0.979, p = 0.038). Acute termination of either induced atrial tachycardia (AT) or induced AF was not associated with improved procedure outcome. Among the continued arrhythmia group, the benefit of acute termination was statistically significant in AT (HR 0.329, 95% CI 0.108-0.997, p = 0.039), but not in AF (HR 0.704, 95% CI 0.396-1.253, p = 0.233) after PVI.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute termination of induced rhythm is not a reliable ablation endpoint during substrate modification in patients with inducible arrhythmia after PVI.