4.7 Article

Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Reduces the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Catheter Ablation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.052

关键词

ablation; atrial fibrillation; continuous positive airway pressure; obstructive sleep apnea

资金

  1. Medtronic
  2. Biosense Webster
  3. Rhythmia Medical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Background OSA is a predictor of AF recurrence following PVI. However, the impact of CPAP therapy on PVI outcome in patients with OSA is poorly known. Methods Among 426 patients who underwent PVI between 2007 and 2010, 62 patients had a polysomnography-confirmed diagnosis of OSA. While 32 patients were CPAP users the remaining 30 patients were CPAP nonusers. The recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and need for repeat ablations were compared between the groups during a follow-up period of 12 months. Additionally, the outcome of patients with OSA was compared to a group of patients from the same PVI cohort without OSA. Results CPAP therapy resulted in higher AF-free survival rate (71.9% vs. 36.7%; p = 0.01) and AF-free survival off antiarrhythmic drugs or repeat ablation following PVI (65.6% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.02). AF recurrence rate of CPAP-treated patients was similar to a group of patients without OSA (HR: 0.7, p = 0.46). AF recurrence following PVI in CPAP nonuser patients was significantly higher (HR: 2.4, p < 0.02) and similar to that of OSA patients managed medically without ablation (HR: 2.1, p = 0.68). Conclusions CPAP is an important therapy in OSA patients undergoing PVI that improves arrhythmia free survival. PVI offers limited value to OSA patients not treated with CPAP. (C) 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据