4.4 Article

Comparative effects of intensive ganglionated plexus ablation in treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and vasovagal syncope

Journal

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 11, Pages 1326-1333

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23446

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; ganglionated plexus; vasovagal response; vasovagal syncope; pulmonary vein isolation

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2018A030313637]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Ganglionated plexus (GP) ablation is used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) and vasovagal syncope (VVS). However, the comparative effects of GP ablation in treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) and VVS have not been well studied. Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of intensive GP ablation on PAF and VVS. Methods PAF and VVS patients were enrolled in this study. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was performed in the PAF group, and additional ablation was performed at GP sites. Anatomic ablation of left atrial GPs was performed in the VVS group. The primary endpoint was freedom from AF or other sustained atrial tachycardia and syncope recurrence. Results A total of 195 patients were enrolled: 146 patients with PAF, including eight patients with combined VVS (PAF group), and 49 patients with VVS (VVS group). Vasovagal response (VR) was achieved in 78 (53.4%) patients in the PAF group and 48 patients (98.0%) in the VVS group (P < .05). During the 17.8 +/- 10.5 (range, 3-42) month follow-up, 126 (86.3%) patients were free of AF in the PAF group, and 45 (91.8%) patients in the VVS group had no syncope recurrence and significantly improved symptoms. Conclusions Anatomically guided intensive GP ablation showed efficient clinical outcomes for both groups of patients. Compared with PAF patients, VVS patients had more VR during ablation in the left atrium. Furthermore, VR during ablation indicated a better prognosis in PAF patients.

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