Literature DB >> 10831944

Randomized comparison of two targets in typical atrial flutter ablation.

F Anselme1, D Klug, P Scanu, H Poty, D Lacroix, S Kacet, A Cribier, N Saoudi.   

Abstract

Typical atrial flutter ablation has become anatomically guided to 2 separate sites within the isthmus at the inferior right atrium: (1) between the inferior vena cava and the tricuspid annulus (anterior side of the isthmus [A]), (2) between the eustachian crest, the coronary sinus ostium and tricuspid annulus (posterior side of the isthmus [P]). We prospectively compared ablation results at these sites in 72 consecutive patients. Patients were randomized in group P or A according to the initial target site. If ablation failed at 1 site after 15 radiofrequency (RF) pulses, the other side of the isthmus was targeted. Before 15 RF pulses, complete bidirectional isthmus block was achieved in 30 of 36 group A patients and in 25 of 36 group P patients, with similar mean RF pulses number, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. After shifting to the other target, success was finally obtained at P in 2 of 6 group A patients, and at A in 8 of 11 group P patients before a maximum of 30 RF pulses. Among successful patients, number of RF pulses, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time were significantly lower in group A (7.2 +/- 5.4 vs 11.0 +/- 8.1 pulses, p = 0.03; 131 +/- 44 vs 163 +/- 66 minutes, p = 0.03; 31 +/- 19 vs 46 +/- 24 minutes, p = 0.01, respectively). Impairment of atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction occurred in 5 patients only during ablation at P. AV block was transient in 4 patients and permanent in 1. Although atrial flutter ablation is equally effective at P and A, success seems easier to obtain when A is first targeted. Ablation at P is associated with a significant risk of AV block.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10831944     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)00760-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  Various routes of septal propagation in common atrial flutter.

Authors:  Taro Date; Kunihiko Abe; Hidekazu Miyazaki; Teiichi Yamane; Kenichi Sugimoto; Junichi Mogi; Youichi Honda; Kenji Noma; Shinichiro Ishikawa; Seibu Mochizuki
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Low clinical recurrence and procedure benefits following treatment of common atrial flutter by electrogram-guided hot spot focal cryoablation.

Authors:  Annibale S Montenero; Nicola Bruno; Andrea Antonelli; Daniele Mangiameli; Luca Barbieri; Francesco Zumbo; Peter Andrew
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Catheter selection for ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus for treatment of typical atrial flutter.

Authors:  Antoine Da Costa; Yann Jamon; Cécile Romeyer-Bouchard; Jérôme Thévenin; Marc Messier; Karl Isaaz
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 1.900

4.  Atrial Flutter, Typical and Atypical: A Review.

Authors:  Francisco G Cosío
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2017-06

5.  The relationship between the P wave and local atrial electrogram in predicting conduction block during catheter ablation of cavo-tricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter.

Authors:  Miki Yokokawa; Mohamad C Sinno; Mohammed Saeed; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Hamid Ghanbari; Thomas Crawford; Krit Jongnarangsin; Ryan Cunnane; Frank Pelosi; Frank Bogun; Aman Chugh; Fred Morady; Hakan Oral
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Clinical Anatomy of the Cavotricuspid Isthmus and Terminal Crest.

Authors:  Wiesława Klimek-Piotrowska; Mateusz K Hołda; Mateusz Koziej; Jakub Hołda; Katarzyna Piątek; Kamil Tyrak; Filip Bolechała
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.