4.4 Article

Anatomic approach for ganglionic plexi ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 3, Pages 330-334

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.03.062

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is evidence that parasympathetic denervation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences. This study aimed at applying an anatomic approach for ablation of atrial ganglionic plexi (GPs) in patients with paroxysmal AF. Nineteen patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal AF underwent anatomically guided radiofrequency ablation at the location of the 4 main left atrial GPs and were prospectively assessed for recurrence of AF or other atrial arrhythmia. This group was compared with 19 age- and gender-matched patients who previously underwent conventional circumferential pulmonary vein ablation. All ablation procedures were uneventful. Circumferential and GP ablations were accomplished with a radiofrequency delivery time of 28 +/- 5 versus 18 +/- 3 min (p<0.001) and a fluoroscopy time of 31 +/- 5 versus 18 +/- 5 min (p <0.001), respectively. Parasympathetic reflexes during radiofrequency ablation were elicited in 4 patients (21%). Arrhythmia recurred in 7 patients (37%) with circumferential ablation and 14 patients (74%) with GP ablation, during 1-year follow-up (p for log-rank test = 0.017). In 2 patients with GP ablation, left atrial flutters were documented in addition to AF during follow-up. Patients who underwent GP ablation had an almost 2.5 times higher risk of AF recurrence compared with those who underwent circumferential ablation (hazard ratio 2.6, 95 % confidence interval 1.0 to 6.6, p = 0.038). In conclusion, anatomically guided GP ablation is feasible and safe in the electrophysiology laboratory, but this approach yields inferior clinical results compared with circumferential ablation. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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