Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Acute efficacy of contiguous versus temporally discontiguous point-by-point radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized study

B. Aldhoon, P. Peichl, P. Osmančík, P. Konečný, J. Kautzner, D. Wichterle

. 2022 ; 64 (3) : 661-667. [pub] 20220106

Language English Country Netherlands

Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-07-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2011-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-07-01 to 1 year ago

PURPOSE: Durable pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) determines the clinical success of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. In this randomized study, we investigated whether the temporally discontiguous deployment of ablation lesions adversely affected the acute efficacy of PVI. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (aged 59 ± 11, 58% males) were randomized 1:1 to either discontiguous (D-PVI) or contiguous (C-PVI) encircling radiofrequency (RF) lesions around ipsilateral PVs. A contact force-sensing catheter was used targeting a final interlesion distance < 6 mm and the ablation index of 400-450 (anterior wall) and 300-350 (posterior wall). The study endpoint was defined as failure of first-pass PVI or acute PV reconnection during a waiting time (> 30 min) followed by adenosine challenge. RESULTS: The total RF time, number of RF lesions, and mean interlesion distance were comparable in both groups. Total endpoint rates were 1/36 (3%) in the D-PVI vs 4/36 (11%) in the C-PVI groups; P = 0.34 for superiority, P = 0.008 for non-inferiority. Adenosine-induced reconnection of right PVs was the only endpoint in the D-PVI group. In the C-PVI group, first-pass PVI failed in 2 right PVs and spontaneous reconnection occurred in 2 other circles (left and right PVs). CONCLUSION: Temporally discontiguous deployment of RF lesions is not associated with lower procedural PVI efficacy when strict criteria for interlesion distance and ablation index are applied. The development of local edema around each ablation site does not prevent effective RF lesion formation at adjacent positions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03332862).

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22024609
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221031100445.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s10840-021-01113-9 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34988847
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Aldhoon, Bashar $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/000000021845847X
245    10
$a Acute efficacy of contiguous versus temporally discontiguous point-by-point radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized study / $c B. Aldhoon, P. Peichl, P. Osmančík, P. Konečný, J. Kautzner, D. Wichterle
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Durable pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) determines the clinical success of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. In this randomized study, we investigated whether the temporally discontiguous deployment of ablation lesions adversely affected the acute efficacy of PVI. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (aged 59 ± 11, 58% males) were randomized 1:1 to either discontiguous (D-PVI) or contiguous (C-PVI) encircling radiofrequency (RF) lesions around ipsilateral PVs. A contact force-sensing catheter was used targeting a final interlesion distance < 6 mm and the ablation index of 400-450 (anterior wall) and 300-350 (posterior wall). The study endpoint was defined as failure of first-pass PVI or acute PV reconnection during a waiting time (> 30 min) followed by adenosine challenge. RESULTS: The total RF time, number of RF lesions, and mean interlesion distance were comparable in both groups. Total endpoint rates were 1/36 (3%) in the D-PVI vs 4/36 (11%) in the C-PVI groups; P = 0.34 for superiority, P = 0.008 for non-inferiority. Adenosine-induced reconnection of right PVs was the only endpoint in the D-PVI group. In the C-PVI group, first-pass PVI failed in 2 right PVs and spontaneous reconnection occurred in 2 other circles (left and right PVs). CONCLUSION: Temporally discontiguous deployment of RF lesions is not associated with lower procedural PVI efficacy when strict criteria for interlesion distance and ablation index are applied. The development of local edema around each ablation site does not prevent effective RF lesion formation at adjacent positions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03332862).
650    _2
$a adenosin $7 D000241
650    12
$a fibrilace síní $x chirurgie $7 D001281
650    12
$a katetrizační ablace $7 D017115
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a venae pulmonales $x chirurgie $7 D011667
650    _2
$a recidiva $7 D012008
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Peichl, Petr $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Osmančík, Pavel $u University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Konečný, Petr $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kautzner, Josef $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Wichterle, Dan $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00008134 $t Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology $x 1572-8595 $g Roč. 64, č. 3 (2022), s. 661-667
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34988847 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221031100443 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854374 $s 1175899
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 64 $c 3 $d 661-667 $e 20220106 $i 1572-8595 $m Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology $n J Interv Card Electrophysiol $x MED00008134
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...