4.7 Article

Pulmonary Vein Isolation Outcome Degree Is a New Score for Efficacy of Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10245827

关键词

atrial fibrillation; left atrial diameter; left ventricular ejection fraction; CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score; pulmonary vein isolation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces PVIOD as a new semiquantitative measure for AF catheter ablation efficacy, and identifies longstanding persistent AF, left atrial diameter, and left ventricular ejection fraction as independent predictors associated with PVIOD.
This study introduces the pulmonary vein isolation outcome degree (PVIOD) as a new semiquantitative measure for the efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation and reports the determination of predictors associated with PVIOD. The median follow-up periods of 117 patients after the first and last ablation were, respectively, 82 (IQR 15) and 72 (IQR 30) months. PVIOD 1 included 32.5% of patients, those with successful single pulmonary vein isolation (PVI); PVIOD 2 included 29.1% of subjects, those with success after multiple procedures; PVIOD 3 comprised 14.5% of patients, those with clinical success; and PVIOD 4 included 23.9% of cases, those with procedural and clinical failure. In the multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis, PVIOD 1-4 were independently associated with longstanding persistent AF with paroxysmal AF as the referent category (odds ratio (OR), 3.5; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.1-10.7 (p = 0.031)), left atrial (LA) diameter (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3 (p = 0.001)) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.86-1.0 (p = 0.038)). LA size > 41 mm, LVEF <= 50% and longstanding persistent AF are strong predictors of AF recurrence. PVIOD 1-4 offer the most exact long-term prognosis of PVI. The purpose of the present article is to expand the quantitative measure of procedural success in the medical and biological fields.

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