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
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

101489

Informations 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.

Auteurs

N Vonderlin (N)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Germany.

J Siebermair (J)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Germany.

A A Mahabadi (AA)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

D Dobrev (D)

Institute of Pharmacology, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
Department of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
Department of Medicine and Research Center, Montreal Heart Institute and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.

T Rassaf (T)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

R Wakili (R)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Germany.
Department of Medicine and Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

S Kochhaeuser (S)

Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, Niels Stensen Kliniken, Marienhospital Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.

Classifications MeSH