4.2 Article

Reduction of AF recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation by eliminating ATP-induced transient venous re-conduction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 7, Pages 704-708

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00842.x

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; pulmonary vein; reconnection; dormant conduction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent evidence has suggested that the transient re-conduction of the isolated pulmonary vein (PV) induced by the intravenous injection of adenosine (dormant PV conduction) might predict the incidence of subsequent venous reconnection after the procedure, which is the main cause of the atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after PV isolation (PVI). We tested the hypothesis that the elimination of these dormant PV conductions by additional radiofrequency (RF) applications can improve the efficacy of the PVI. Methods and Results: One hundred forty-eight patients (124 males; mean age 53 +/- 9 years) with drug-refractory AF underwent the PVI procedure. The standard PVI was performed in 94 patients (Group A), whereas the elimination of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-induced dormant conduction using additional RF energy was performed in addition to the standard PVI in other 54 patients (Group B). Dormant conduction was observed in 56% of the patients (30/54) in Group B and 95% of these transient re-conductions were successfully eliminated by additional RF applications (mean: 1.5 +/- 1.0 times). During the mean follow-up period of 20 months, recurrences of AF after the procedures were observed significantly less frequently in Group B (20%) than in Group A (40%) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of additional RF applications to eliminate transient PV reconnection induced by ATP injection led to a reduction of AF recurrence after PVI, most likely due to the minimization of the subsequent PV reconnection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available