4.1 Article

Feasibility and safety of left atrial access for ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with persistent left superior vena cava

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 357-364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.14446

关键词

ablation; feasibility; left atrium; persistent left superior vena cava; safety; transseptal puncture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed the feasibility and safety of left atrial ablations in patients with persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). The findings suggest that left atrial access and ablation procedures can be successfully performed in patients with PLSVC, especially when PLSVC is unknown prior to the procedure.
Background In patients with persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) ablation procedures can be challenging. We sought to determine the feasibility and safety of left atrial ablations in patients with PLSVC, especially when PLSVC is unknown prior to the ablation procedure. Methods and results In this retrospective analysis 15 adult patients (mean age 64.6 +/- 14.5 years, 53.3% male) with PLSVC undergoing 27 ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation or left atrial flutter were included. In 5 (33.3%) patients PLSVC was only discovered during the procedure. Transseptal puncture (TSP) was declared difficult by the ablating physician in 13 of 27 (48.2%) procedures and was not successfully completed in the first attempt in two patients with known PLSVC. Once TSP was successfully completed, all relevant structures were reached both during mapping and ablation in all procedures independent of whether PLSVC was known prior to the procedure. One major complication (3.7%) occurred in 27 procedures in a patient with known PLSVC. In the patients with unknown PLSVC no complication occurred. Conclusion In experienced hands, left atrial access and ablation in patients with PLSVC is feasible and safe, particularly with regard to patients in whom the PLSVC is unknown prior to the ablation procedure.

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

4.1
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