• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

PVI-only is not enough for all patients with persistent AF: A FLOW-AF subgroup analysis

A. Verma, S. Castellano, MH. Kong, P. Neuzil, T. Szili-Torok, SG. Spitzer, A. Rillig, VY. Reddy

. 2025 ; 22 (5) : 1170-1178. [pub] 20241022

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, randomizované kontrolované studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25015999

BACKGROUND: Since the Substrate and Trigger Ablation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Trial Part II (STAR-AF II), there has been a trend toward pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only ablation strategies for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Electrographic flow (EGF) mapping can identify active sources of atrial fibrillation (AF) and estimate the electrographic flow consistency (EGFC) of wavefront propagation through substrate, revealing functional AF mechanisms. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the success of a PVI-only ablation strategy for a redo PeAF/longstanding PeAF population. METHODS: Electrographic Flow-Guided Ablation in Redo Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (FLOW-AF [NCT04473963]) prospectively enrolled patients with nonparoxysmal AF undergoing redo ablation at 4 centers. One-minute EGF recordings using 64-pole basket catheters were obtained both pre-PVI and post-PVI following a 20-minute wait and confirmation of electrical isolation of veins. Patients with EGF-identified sources were randomized 1:1 to EGF-guided source ablation vs PVI-only. Patients with no sources were not randomized and mostly received PVI only. RESULTS: Study of 85 patients enrolled 24 with EGF-identified sources randomized to PVI only and 23 with no sources receiving PVI only. Of these 47 patients, those with sources (Group 2) had different clinical characteristics including older age and higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores compared with those with no sources (Group 1). After PVI only, Group 1 had 70% (16 of 23) freedom from recurrent AF (FFAF) within 1 year vs Group 2 with 35% (8 of 23), P = .018. In addition, patients with high electrographic flow consistency (EGFC) indicative of healthy or normal substrate had 67% (10 of 15) FFAF vs 45% (14 of 31) in those with low EGFC suggestive of abnormal substrate, P = .011. CONCLUSION: Success rates in no-sources patients receiving PVI only are better than in those with sources randomized to PVI only. For the clinically heterogenous population of patients with PeAF, the presence of EGF-identified sources matters clinically, and PVI only will not be enough for all patients.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25015999
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250731091431.0
007      
ta
008      
250708s2025 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.10.037 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39447813
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Verma, Atul $u McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada
245    10
$a PVI-only is not enough for all patients with persistent AF: A FLOW-AF subgroup analysis / $c A. Verma, S. Castellano, MH. Kong, P. Neuzil, T. Szili-Torok, SG. Spitzer, A. Rillig, VY. Reddy
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Since the Substrate and Trigger Ablation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Trial Part II (STAR-AF II), there has been a trend toward pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only ablation strategies for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Electrographic flow (EGF) mapping can identify active sources of atrial fibrillation (AF) and estimate the electrographic flow consistency (EGFC) of wavefront propagation through substrate, revealing functional AF mechanisms. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the success of a PVI-only ablation strategy for a redo PeAF/longstanding PeAF population. METHODS: Electrographic Flow-Guided Ablation in Redo Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (FLOW-AF [NCT04473963]) prospectively enrolled patients with nonparoxysmal AF undergoing redo ablation at 4 centers. One-minute EGF recordings using 64-pole basket catheters were obtained both pre-PVI and post-PVI following a 20-minute wait and confirmation of electrical isolation of veins. Patients with EGF-identified sources were randomized 1:1 to EGF-guided source ablation vs PVI-only. Patients with no sources were not randomized and mostly received PVI only. RESULTS: Study of 85 patients enrolled 24 with EGF-identified sources randomized to PVI only and 23 with no sources receiving PVI only. Of these 47 patients, those with sources (Group 2) had different clinical characteristics including older age and higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores compared with those with no sources (Group 1). After PVI only, Group 1 had 70% (16 of 23) freedom from recurrent AF (FFAF) within 1 year vs Group 2 with 35% (8 of 23), P = .018. In addition, patients with high electrographic flow consistency (EGFC) indicative of healthy or normal substrate had 67% (10 of 15) FFAF vs 45% (14 of 31) in those with low EGFC suggestive of abnormal substrate, P = .011. CONCLUSION: Success rates in no-sources patients receiving PVI only are better than in those with sources randomized to PVI only. For the clinically heterogenous population of patients with PeAF, the presence of EGF-identified sources matters clinically, and PVI only will not be enough for all patients.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a fibrilace síní $x chirurgie $x patofyziologie $x diagnóza $7 D001281
650    12
$a venae pulmonales $x chirurgie $x patofyziologie $7 D011667
650    12
$a katetrizační ablace $x metody $7 D017115
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    12
$a převodní systém srdeční $x patofyziologie $x chirurgie $7 D006329
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Castellano, Steven $u Cortex, Inc, Menlo Park, California. Electronic address: steven.castellano@gmail.com
700    1_
$a Kong, Melissa H $u Cortex, Inc, Menlo Park, California
700    1_
$a Neuzil, Petr $u Homolka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Szili-Torok, Tamas $u Cardiology Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
700    1_
$a Spitzer, Stefan G $u Praxisklinik Herz und Gefäße, Dresden, Germany & Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Medical Technology, Cottbus, Germany
700    1_
$a Rillig, Andreas $u University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Reddy, Vivek Y $u Department of Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
773    0_
$w MED00156180 $t Heart rhythm $x 1556-3871 $g Roč. 22, č. 5 (2025), s. 1170-1178
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39447813 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250708 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250731091425 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2366689 $s 1253124
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 22 $c 5 $d 1170-1178 $e 20241022 $i 1556-3871 $m Heart rhythm $n Heart Rhythm $x MED00156180
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250708

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...