4.2 Article

Efficacy of Left Atrial Voltage-Based Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1055-1063

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jce.13019

关键词

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; low-voltage zone; pulmonary vein isolation; voltage mapping; substrate mapping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low Voltage-Based Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. Background: Low-voltage zones (LVZs) represent fibrotic tissue and are substrates for atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized that LVZ-based substrate modification along with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) would improve outcomes in persistent AF (PeAF) patients with LVZs, whereas PVI alone would work in patients without LVZs. Methods and Results: Voltage mapping of the left atrium (LA) was performed during sinus rhythm in 101 PeAF patients in whom LVZ was defined as an area with bipolar electrograms <0.5 mV. Thirty-nine patients had LVZs and underwent ablation of the entire LVZ area after PVI (LVZabl group). In the remaining 62 patients without LVZs, PVI alone was performed with no further substrate modifications (PVI group). An additional group of 16 consecutive PeAF patients with LVZ did not undergo any substrate modification after PVI and were used as a comparison group (LVZnon-abl group) despite having similar size of LVZs to that in the LVZabl group. After a single session, 28 (72%) patients in the LVZabl group had no recurrence, whereas 49 (79%) patients in the PVI group had no recurrence during 18 +/- 7 months of follow-up (log-rank, P = 0.400). In the LVZnon-abl group, only 6 patients (38%) had no recurrence during 32 +/- 7 months of follow-up, even after a mean number of sessions of 1.8 (log-rank, P < 0.001, compared with the LVZabl group). Conclusions: Additional LVZ-based substrate modification after PVI improved the outcome in PeAF patients with LVZs, whereas PVI alone worked in patients without LVZs, even in those with PeAF.

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

4.2
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