4.5 Article

Comparison of the clinical outcome after pulmonary vein isolation based on the appearance of adenosine-induced dormant pulmonary vein conduction

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 2, 页码 337-345

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.05.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The elimination of transient pulmonary vein (PV) reconduction (dormant PV conduction) revealed by adenosine in addition to PV isolation reduced the atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after catheter ablation. The dormant PV conduction is induced in approximately half of the AF patients that undergo PV isolation. The present study compared the clinical outcome of AF ablation in patients whose dormant PV conduction was eliminated by additional radiofrequency applications with the outcome in patients without dormant conduction. Methods A total of 233 consecutive patients (206 male, 54.2 +/- 10.1 years) that underwent AF ablation were included in the present study. Dormant PV conduction was induced by the administration of adenosine triphosphate after PV isolation and was eliminated by supplemental radiofrequency application. All patients were followed up for >12 months (mean 903 days) after the first ablation. Results Following PV isolation, dormant PV conduction was induced in 139 (59.7%) of 233 patients and was successfully eliminated in 98% (223/228) of those in the first ablation procedure. After the first procedure, 63.9% (149/233) of patients were free from AF recurrence events. The success rates of a single or final AF ablation in patients with the appearance of the dormant PV conduction were similar to those of patients without dormant conduction (P = .69 and P = .69, respectively). Conclusions Dormant PV conduction was induced in over half of the patients with AF. After the elimination of adenosine triphosphate-induced reconnection, the clinical outcome of patients with the dormant PV conduction was equivalent to that of patients without conduction. (Am Heart J 2010;160:337-45.)

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

4.5
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