-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Autonomic Changes Are More Durable After Radiofrequency Than Pulsed Electric Field Pulmonary Vein Ablation
P. Stojadinović, D. Wichterle, P. Peichl, H. Nakagawa, R. Čihák, J. Hašková, J. Kautzner
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- autonomní nervový systém MeSH
- fibrilace síní * chirurgie MeSH
- katetrizační ablace * škodlivé účinky metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nodus sinuatrialis MeSH
- venae pulmonales * chirurgie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by radiofrequency (RF) energy is associated with a collateral ganglionated plexi ablation. Pulsed electric field (PEF) is a nonthermal energy source that preferentially affects the myocardial cells and spares neural tissue. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether PVI by a PEF compared with RF energy will result in less prominent alteration of the cardiac autonomic nervous system. METHODS: A total of 31 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent PVI using a novel lattice-tip catheter and PEF energy (n = 18) or a conventional irrigated-tip catheter and RF energy (n = 13). The response of the sinoatrial node and atrioventricular node to extracardiac high-frequency, high-output, right vagal nerve stimulation was evaluated at baseline and during and at the end of the ablation procedure. Substantial reduction in responsiveness was arbitrarily defined as stimulation-inducible pause <1.5 seconds. RESULTS: Reduced response of the sinoatrial node was documented in 13 of 13 (100%) and 6 of 18 (33%) patients (P = 0.0001) in RF and PEF groups, respectively. Reduced response of the atrioventricular node was found in 10 of 11 (93%) and 6 of 18 (33%) patients (P = 0.002) in RF and PEF groups, respectively. The major effects were observed predominantly during ablation around the right pulmonary veins. Early recovery of ganglionated plexi function was noticed only in the PEF ablation group. RF ablation resulted in higher acceleration of the sinus rhythm compared with PEF ablation (20 ± 13 beats/min vs 12 ± 10 beats/min; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: PEF compared with RF energy used for PVI induces significantly weaker and less durable suppression of cardiac autonomic regulations.
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA
Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22025342
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20221031100826.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 221017s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.04.017 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35863816
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Stojadinović, Predrag $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: stop@ikem.cz
- 245 10
- $a Autonomic Changes Are More Durable After Radiofrequency Than Pulsed Electric Field Pulmonary Vein Ablation / $c P. Stojadinović, D. Wichterle, P. Peichl, H. Nakagawa, R. Čihák, J. Hašková, J. Kautzner
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by radiofrequency (RF) energy is associated with a collateral ganglionated plexi ablation. Pulsed electric field (PEF) is a nonthermal energy source that preferentially affects the myocardial cells and spares neural tissue. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether PVI by a PEF compared with RF energy will result in less prominent alteration of the cardiac autonomic nervous system. METHODS: A total of 31 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent PVI using a novel lattice-tip catheter and PEF energy (n = 18) or a conventional irrigated-tip catheter and RF energy (n = 13). The response of the sinoatrial node and atrioventricular node to extracardiac high-frequency, high-output, right vagal nerve stimulation was evaluated at baseline and during and at the end of the ablation procedure. Substantial reduction in responsiveness was arbitrarily defined as stimulation-inducible pause <1.5 seconds. RESULTS: Reduced response of the sinoatrial node was documented in 13 of 13 (100%) and 6 of 18 (33%) patients (P = 0.0001) in RF and PEF groups, respectively. Reduced response of the atrioventricular node was found in 10 of 11 (93%) and 6 of 18 (33%) patients (P = 0.002) in RF and PEF groups, respectively. The major effects were observed predominantly during ablation around the right pulmonary veins. Early recovery of ganglionated plexi function was noticed only in the PEF ablation group. RF ablation resulted in higher acceleration of the sinus rhythm compared with PEF ablation (20 ± 13 beats/min vs 12 ± 10 beats/min; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: PEF compared with RF energy used for PVI induces significantly weaker and less durable suppression of cardiac autonomic regulations.
- 650 12
- $a fibrilace síní $x chirurgie $7 D001281
- 650 _2
- $a autonomní nervový systém $7 D001341
- 650 12
- $a katetrizační ablace $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D017115
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a venae pulmonales $x chirurgie $7 D011667
- 650 _2
- $a nodus sinuatrialis $7 D012849
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Wichterle, Dan $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Peichl, Petr $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Nakagawa, Hiroshi $u Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- 700 1_
- $a Čihák, Robert $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Hašková, Jana $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
- 773 0_
- $w MED00193518 $t JACC. Clinical electrophysiology $x 2405-5018 $g Roč. 8, č. 7 (2022), s. 895-904
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35863816 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20221017 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20221031100824 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1854850 $s 1176632
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 8 $c 7 $d 895-904 $e 20220629 $i 2405-5018 $m JACC. Clinical electrophysiology $n JACC Clin Electrophysiol $x MED00193518
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20221017