Outcome after ablation of atypical atrial flutter: Is induction a feasible approach?
Atypical atrial flutter
Induction
Outcome
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:
Oct 2024
Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
27
05
2024
revised:
18
07
2024
accepted:
08
08
2024
medline:
6
9
2024
pubmed:
6
9
2024
entrez:
6
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Atypical atrial flutter (AAF) is an increasingly relevant clinical problem. Despite advancements in mapping and ablation techniques, the general management of these patients remain challenging especially when mapping cannot be performed during ongoing arrhythmia. There are no data whether induction of AAF is a feasible approach in these cases. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent catheter ablation of AAF and compared procedural results between patients with ongoing tachycardia when starting the procedure and patients with induced AAF. We analyzed 97 ablation procedures performed in 76 patients with a mean follow-up of 13.2 ± 12.2 months. In 68 procedures (70.1 %) AAF was ongoing at the beginning of the procedure and in 29 cases (29.9 %) AAF had to be induced.There was no statistically significant difference regarding acute procedural success. The recurrence rate of any arrhythmia during follow-up was significantly higher after ablation of ongoing AAF compared to induced AAF (63.2 % vs. 42.9 %; p = 0.047) driven by a significant higher rate of AAF-recurrence (57.4 % vs. 34.5 %; p = 0.039). The number of ablated tachycardias per patient as well as the number of de-novo tachycardias found during re-ablation showed no significant difference between both groups. Starting a procedure with ongoing arrhythmia did not result in better short- or mid-term outcome in patients undergoing AAF ablation. Furthermore, based on our results inducing AAF seems a legitimate approach for AAF ablation in patients presenting in sinus rhythm.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Atypical atrial flutter (AAF) is an increasingly relevant clinical problem. Despite advancements in mapping and ablation techniques, the general management of these patients remain challenging especially when mapping cannot be performed during ongoing arrhythmia. There are no data whether induction of AAF is a feasible approach in these cases.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent catheter ablation of AAF and compared procedural results between patients with ongoing tachycardia when starting the procedure and patients with induced AAF.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We analyzed 97 ablation procedures performed in 76 patients with a mean follow-up of 13.2 ± 12.2 months. In 68 procedures (70.1 %) AAF was ongoing at the beginning of the procedure and in 29 cases (29.9 %) AAF had to be induced.There was no statistically significant difference regarding acute procedural success. The recurrence rate of any arrhythmia during follow-up was significantly higher after ablation of ongoing AAF compared to induced AAF (63.2 % vs. 42.9 %; p = 0.047) driven by a significant higher rate of AAF-recurrence (57.4 % vs. 34.5 %; p = 0.039). The number of ablated tachycardias per patient as well as the number of de-novo tachycardias found during re-ablation showed no significant difference between both groups.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Starting a procedure with ongoing arrhythmia did not result in better short- or mid-term outcome in patients undergoing AAF ablation. Furthermore, based on our results inducing AAF seems a legitimate approach for AAF ablation in patients presenting in sinus rhythm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39238839
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101489
pii: S2352-9067(24)00155-6
pmc: PMC11375277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101489Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors.
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.