Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2011
Complex fractionated atrial electrogram or linear ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation--a prospective randomized study.
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.
Estner Heidi L, Hessling Gabriele, Biegler Roman, Schreieck Juergen, Fichtner Stephanie, Wu Jinjin, Jilek Clemens, Zrenner Bernhard, Ndrepepa Gjin, Schmitt Claus, Deisenhofer Isabel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is a promising treatment strategy. We tested the hypothesis that CFAE ablation is superior to linear ablation in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF.
METHODS: In this study, 116 patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to undergo circumferential PVI plus additional lines (linear ablation group; 59 patients) or CFAE ablation plus ostial pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (spot ablation group; 57 patients). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single ablation procedure (clinical and repeat 7-day Holter), 12 months after ablation without antiarrhythmic medication.
RESULTS: The primary endpoint was reached in 22 of 59 (37%) patients of the linear ablation group and in 22 of 57 (39%) patients of the spot ablation group (P = 0.9). Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias, including reablations, was achieved in 54% of patients (linear ablation group) versus 56% of patients (spot ablation group; P = 0.8). The incidence of recurrent persistent AF was higher after linear ablation than after spot ablation (21/37 vs 11/35 patients; P = 0.03); atrial tachycardia (AT) was seen more often after spot ablation (10/35 vs 4/37 patients; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: In patients with persistent AF, CFAE ablation plus PVI reaches the same results as circumferential PVI plus lines, in terms of freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias within the first year after a single ablation procedure. Arrhythmia recurrences in patients after spot ablation were caused more often by AT, whereas recurrent persistent AF was more prevalent after the linear ablation approach.
METHODS: In this study, 116 patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to undergo circumferential PVI plus additional lines (linear ablation group; 59 patients) or CFAE ablation plus ostial pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (spot ablation group; 57 patients). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single ablation procedure (clinical and repeat 7-day Holter), 12 months after ablation without antiarrhythmic medication.
RESULTS: The primary endpoint was reached in 22 of 59 (37%) patients of the linear ablation group and in 22 of 57 (39%) patients of the spot ablation group (P = 0.9). Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias, including reablations, was achieved in 54% of patients (linear ablation group) versus 56% of patients (spot ablation group; P = 0.8). The incidence of recurrent persistent AF was higher after linear ablation than after spot ablation (21/37 vs 11/35 patients; P = 0.03); atrial tachycardia (AT) was seen more often after spot ablation (10/35 vs 4/37 patients; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: In patients with persistent AF, CFAE ablation plus PVI reaches the same results as circumferential PVI plus lines, in terms of freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias within the first year after a single ablation procedure. Arrhythmia recurrences in patients after spot ablation were caused more often by AT, whereas recurrent persistent AF was more prevalent after the linear ablation approach.