Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2018
Optimal endpoint for catheter ablation of longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation: A randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Wang Yuan-Long, Liu Xu, Zhang Yu, Jiang Wei-Feng, Zhou Li, Qin Mu, Zhang Dao-Liang, Zhang Xiao-Dong, Wu Shao-Hui, Xu Kai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (LPeAF), the ideal endpoint of ablation remains to be determined. This study was to explore the value of pursuing AF termination or no with the same strategy during ablation on the long-term outcomes in patients with LPeAF.
METHODS: Utilized "CCL" strategy is a fixed ablation approach consisting of circumferential pulmonary vein antrum isolation, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrogram, and linear ablation between two anatomical structures (the mitral isthmus, left atrial roof). Note that 400 patients were randomized to group A (technical endpoint) and group B (pursuing AF termination).
RESULTS: A group with technical endpoint had lower rate of acute AF termination (AF→sinus rhythm, 3.5% vs 18.1%; AF→atrial tachycardia, 23.7% vs 44.7%; P < 0.01) and shorter duration of ablation (164.9 ± 20.8 vs 223.4 ± 24.9, P < 0.01), radiofrequency delivery time (69.8 ± 18.1 vs 102.2 ± 26.3, P < 0.01), and x-ray exposure time (18.2 ± 8.8 vs 27.9 ± 12.4, P < 0.01) than those in B group (pursuing AF termination). During follow-up, freedom from atrial arrhythmias did not differ between the two groups after a single ablation procedure (46.5% vs 54.3%, P=0.12) and the final ablation procedure (60.1% vs 65.8%, P = 0.24).
CONCLUSION: In patients of LPeAF, pursuing AF termination during ablation was associated with similar long-term clinical outcome compared to that with technical endpoint. Ablation to termination is not the best strategy during ablation.
METHODS: Utilized "CCL" strategy is a fixed ablation approach consisting of circumferential pulmonary vein antrum isolation, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrogram, and linear ablation between two anatomical structures (the mitral isthmus, left atrial roof). Note that 400 patients were randomized to group A (technical endpoint) and group B (pursuing AF termination).
RESULTS: A group with technical endpoint had lower rate of acute AF termination (AF→sinus rhythm, 3.5% vs 18.1%; AF→atrial tachycardia, 23.7% vs 44.7%; P < 0.01) and shorter duration of ablation (164.9 ± 20.8 vs 223.4 ± 24.9, P < 0.01), radiofrequency delivery time (69.8 ± 18.1 vs 102.2 ± 26.3, P < 0.01), and x-ray exposure time (18.2 ± 8.8 vs 27.9 ± 12.4, P < 0.01) than those in B group (pursuing AF termination). During follow-up, freedom from atrial arrhythmias did not differ between the two groups after a single ablation procedure (46.5% vs 54.3%, P=0.12) and the final ablation procedure (60.1% vs 65.8%, P = 0.24).
CONCLUSION: In patients of LPeAF, pursuing AF termination during ablation was associated with similar long-term clinical outcome compared to that with technical endpoint. Ablation to termination is not the best strategy during ablation.