Optimal single procedure strategy of pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon or radiofrequency and non-pulmonary vein triggers ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Catheter ablation
Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
Non-pulmonary vein trigger
Journal
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
13
02
2022
revised:
18
03
2022
accepted:
30
03
2022
entrez:
11
4
2022
pubmed:
12
4
2022
medline:
12
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Limited data exist on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) or radiofrequency (RF) ablation and additional non-pulmonary vein trigger ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (non-PAF). We aimed to assess the outcomes of first-stage catheter ablation for non-PAF patients. Initial PVI was performed on 734 non-PAF patients (age: 64 ± 10 years; male: 584 (80%)) between September 2014 and June 2018 [315 (43%), CB ablation; 419 (57%), RF catheter]. A logistic regression model was used to match 257 pairs (514 patients) according to the propensity scores (CB or RF group). After PVI, additional non-PV trigger ablation was performed if induced by isoproterenol. We analysed the clinical outcomes of both groups. The mean procedural time was significantly shorter in the CB group (125 [range, 89-165] min) than in the RF group (190 [160-224] min; In non-PAF patients, the combination strategy of PVI using CB or RF ablation and non-PV trigger ablation achieved comparable outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Limited data exist on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon (CB) or radiofrequency (RF) ablation and additional non-pulmonary vein trigger ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (non-PAF). We aimed to assess the outcomes of first-stage catheter ablation for non-PAF patients.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Initial PVI was performed on 734 non-PAF patients (age: 64 ± 10 years; male: 584 (80%)) between September 2014 and June 2018 [315 (43%), CB ablation; 419 (57%), RF catheter]. A logistic regression model was used to match 257 pairs (514 patients) according to the propensity scores (CB or RF group). After PVI, additional non-PV trigger ablation was performed if induced by isoproterenol. We analysed the clinical outcomes of both groups.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The mean procedural time was significantly shorter in the CB group (125 [range, 89-165] min) than in the RF group (190 [160-224] min;
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
In non-PAF patients, the combination strategy of PVI using CB or RF ablation and non-PV trigger ablation achieved comparable outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35399609
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101021
pii: S2352-9067(22)00070-7
pmc: PMC8987379
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101021Informations de copyright
© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Europace. 2020 Mar 1;22(3):375-381
pubmed: 31808520
Europace. 2021 Mar 8;23(3):370-379
pubmed: 33188692
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016 Nov;9(11):
pubmed: 27784738
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Apr;31(4):875-884
pubmed: 32017303
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2019 Jan;34(1):23-28
pubmed: 30444759
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013 Mar;24(3):250-8
pubmed: 23210627
Europace. 2019 Sep 1;21(9):1313-1324
pubmed: 31199860
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Jun;30(6):805-814
pubmed: 30767365
Eur Heart J. 2021 Feb 1;42(5):373-498
pubmed: 32860505
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 9;374(23):2235-45
pubmed: 27042964
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Jun;14(6):801-807
pubmed: 28232263
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 15;227:407-412
pubmed: 27838128
Circulation. 2019 Jul 9;140(2):e125-e151
pubmed: 30686041
J Arrhythm. 2019 Feb 18;35(2):215-222
pubmed: 31007785
Am Heart J. 2021 Jan;231:82-92
pubmed: 33098808
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):174-184
pubmed: 31828893
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Oct;30(10):1792-1800
pubmed: 31310033
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021 Oct;62(1):161-169
pubmed: 33000358
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2021 Jan 21;32:100717
pubmed: 33532545
Europace. 2019 Apr 1;21(4):581-589
pubmed: 30376055
Circulation. 2003 Jul 1;107(25):3176-83
pubmed: 12821558
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Mar;15(3):363-368
pubmed: 29107190
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020 Dec;59(3):585-593
pubmed: 31907832
Europace. 2016 Mar;18(3):368-75
pubmed: 26504108
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Nov;17(11):1841-1847
pubmed: 32590151
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Aug;15(8):1121-1129
pubmed: 30060879
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct;31(10):2559-2571
pubmed: 32671920
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016 Nov;47(2):133-142
pubmed: 27193316
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Jun;16(6):838-845
pubmed: 30576880