4.4 Article

Selective ganglionated plexi ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Journal

HEART RHYTHM
Volume 6, Issue 9, Pages 1257-1264

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.05.018

Keywords

Ablation; Ganglionated plexi; Atrial fibrillation; Autonomic nervous system

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Selective ganglionated plexi (GP) ablation guided by high-frequency stimulation has been proposed for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), but the efficacy of the method is not established. OBJECTIVE This study sought to compare selective ablation of GP identified by high-frequency stimulation with extensive regional ablation targeting the anatomic areas of GP in patients with paroxysmal AF. METHODS Eighty patients with paroxysmal AF (age 53 +/- 9 years) were randomized to undergo selective GP ablation or regional left atria( ablation at the anatomic sites of GP. For selective GP ablation (n = 40), ablation targets were the sites where vagal reflexes were evoked by high-frequency stimulation. Vagal reflexes were defined as prolongation of the R-R interval by >50% and a concomitant decrease in blood pressure (>20 mm Hg) during AF. The end point of the procedure was failure to reproduce vagal reflexes with repeated high-frequency stimulation. For anatomic ablation, lesions were delivered at the sites of GP clustering. RESULTS At 13.1 +/- 1.9 months, 42.5% of patients with selective GP and 77.5% of patients with anatomic ablation were free of symptomatic paroxysmal AF (PAF) (P = .02). Parasympathetic denervation was more prominent in patients with anatomic than selective GP ablation, and in patients free of AF compared to these with AF recurrence immediately after ablation, but this trend was abolished at 6 months. CONCLUSION Selective GP ablation directed by high-frequency stimulation does not eliminate paroxysmal AF in the majority of patients. An anatomic approach for regional ablation at the sites of GP confers better results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available