4.6 Article

The role of superior vena cava in catheter ablation of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 1670-1675

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw167

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Superior vena cava

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The superior vena cava (SVC) has been established as an important source of atrial fibrillation (AF). The role of SVC in long-standing persistent AF and the efficacy of empiric electrical isolation of the SVC are still unclear. The purpose of this study was to judge the role of SVC in catheter ablation of long-standing persistent AF. Methods and results A total of 102 consecutive patients with long-standing persistent AF were enrolled. All patients underwent circumferential pulmonary vein isolation, complex fractionated atrial electrograms ablation, and linear ablation during the index procedure. Superior vena cava-triggered AF and an SVC associated with the maintenance of AF were evaluated by mapping catheters during the procedure. The arrhythmogenicity of the SVC was confirmed in only 1 of the patients (0.98%). At the end of 12 months follow-up, the arrhythmia-free survival rate after a single procedure was 43.1%. After the last procedure (mean 1.47 +/- 0.58 procedures), sinus rhythm was maintained in 71 (69.6%) patients, 63 of whom without antiarrhythmic drugs. The patients in AF recurrence group had higher rates of right atrium enlargement (71 vs. 34%, P = 0.03), >= 2 procedures (65 vs. 34%, P < 0.05), longer AF duration (84 +/- 46 vs. 45 +/- 34 months, P, 0.05), and larger left atrium diameter (50 +/- 5 vs. 45 +/- 6 mm, P < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, left atrium diameter and AF duration were independent predictors of AF recurrence. Conclusion The arrhythmogenic SVC is rarely detected in patients with long-standing persistent AF. Empiric SVC electrical isolation in the stepwise approach of long-standing persistent AF seems unnecessary.

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

4.6
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