Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2016
Impact of Rotor Ablation in Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Results From the Randomized OASIS Trial.
Источник пометил эту публикацию как отозванную.
СтатьяОтозванная публикацияНазвание 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.
Mohanty Sanghamitra, Gianni Carola, Mohanty Prasant, Halbfass Philipp, Metz Tamara, Trivedi Chintan, Deneke Thomas, Tomassoni Gery, Bai Rong, Al-Ahmad Amin, Bailey Shane, Burkhardt John David, Gallinghouse G Joseph, Horton Rodney, Hranitzky Patrick M, Sanchez Javier E, Di Biase Luigi, Natale Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nonrandomized studies have reported focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation to be superior to pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) for persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare efficacy of FIRM ablation with or without PVAI versus PVAI plus non-PV trigger ablation in randomized persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients.
METHODS: Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing first ablation were randomized to FIRM only (group 1), FIRM + PVAI (group 2) or PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger ablation (group 3). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachycardia/AF. The secondary endpoint was acute procedural success, defined as AF termination, ≥10% slowing, or organization into atrial tachycardia.
RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were enrolled at 3 centers; 29 in group 1 and 42 each in groups 2 and 3. Group 1 enrollment was terminated early for futility. Focal drivers or rotors were detected in all group 1 and 2 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group 3 versus groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). In groups 1 and 2, acute success after rotor-only ablation was achieved in 12 patients (41%) and 11 (26%), respectively. After 12 ± 7 months' follow-up, 4 patients (14%), 22 (52.4%), and 32 (76%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were AF/atrial tachycardia-free while off antiarrhythmic drugs (log-rank p < 0.0001). Group 3 patients experienced higher success compared with groups 1 (p < 0.001) and 2 (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes were poor with rotor-only ablation. PVAI + rotor ablation had significantly longer procedure time and lower efficacy than PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger-ablation. (Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies in Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation [OASIS]; NCT02533843).
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare efficacy of FIRM ablation with or without PVAI versus PVAI plus non-PV trigger ablation in randomized persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients.
METHODS: Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing first ablation were randomized to FIRM only (group 1), FIRM + PVAI (group 2) or PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger ablation (group 3). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachycardia/AF. The secondary endpoint was acute procedural success, defined as AF termination, ≥10% slowing, or organization into atrial tachycardia.
RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were enrolled at 3 centers; 29 in group 1 and 42 each in groups 2 and 3. Group 1 enrollment was terminated early for futility. Focal drivers or rotors were detected in all group 1 and 2 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group 3 versus groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). In groups 1 and 2, acute success after rotor-only ablation was achieved in 12 patients (41%) and 11 (26%), respectively. After 12 ± 7 months' follow-up, 4 patients (14%), 22 (52.4%), and 32 (76%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were AF/atrial tachycardia-free while off antiarrhythmic drugs (log-rank p < 0.0001). Group 3 patients experienced higher success compared with groups 1 (p < 0.001) and 2 (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes were poor with rotor-only ablation. PVAI + rotor ablation had significantly longer procedure time and lower efficacy than PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger-ablation. (Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies in Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation [OASIS]; NCT02533843).