Hee Tae Yu1, Jaemin Shim1, Junbeom Park1, In-Soo Kim1, Tae-Hoon Kim1, Jae-Sun Uhm1, Boyoung Joung1, Moon-Hyoung Lee1, Young-Hoon Kim1, Hui-Nam Pak2. 1. From the Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Republic of Korea (H.T.Y., I.-S.K., T.-H.K., J.-S.U., B.J., M.-H.L., H.-N.P.); Korea University Cardiovascular Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.S., Y.-H.K.); and Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.P.). 2. From the Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Republic of Korea (H.T.Y., I.-S.K., T.-H.K., J.-S.U., B.J., M.-H.L., H.-N.P.); Korea University Cardiovascular Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.S., Y.-H.K.); and Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.P.). hnpak@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) type can vary depending on condition and timing, and some patients who initially present with persistent AF may be changed to paroxysmal AF after antiarrhythmic drug medication and cardioversion. We investigated whether circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) alone is an effective rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent AF to paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 113 patients with persistent AF to paroxysmal AF (male 75%, 60.4±10.1 years old) who underwent catheter ablation for nonvalvular AF at 3 tertiary hospitals. The participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: CPVI alone (n=59) or CPVI plus linear ablation (CPVI+Line; posterior box+anterior line, n=54). Compared with the CPVI+Line, CPVI alone required shorter procedure (187.2±58.0 versus 211.2±63.9 min; P=0.043) and ablation times (4922.1±1110.5 versus 6205.7±1425.2 s; P<0.001) without difference in procedure-related major complication (3% versus 2%; P=0.611). Antiarrhythmic drug utility rates after ablation were not different between the 2 groups (22% versus 30%; P=0.356). Overall, AF-free survival (log-rank; P=0.206) and AF and antiarrhythmic drug-free survival (log-rank; P=0.321) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:CPVI alone is an effective rhythm control strategy with a shorter procedure time in persistent AF patients converted to paroxysmal AF compared with CPVI with linear ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02176616.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) type can vary depending on condition and timing, and some patients who initially present with persistent AF may be changed to paroxysmal AF after antiarrhythmic drug medication and cardioversion. We investigated whether circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) alone is an effective rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent AF to paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 113 patients with persistent AF to paroxysmal AF (male 75%, 60.4±10.1 years old) who underwent catheter ablation for nonvalvular AF at 3 tertiary hospitals. The participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: CPVI alone (n=59) or CPVI plus linear ablation (CPVI+Line; posterior box+anterior line, n=54). Compared with the CPVI+Line, CPVI alone required shorter procedure (187.2±58.0 versus 211.2±63.9 min; P=0.043) and ablation times (4922.1±1110.5 versus 6205.7±1425.2 s; P<0.001) without difference in procedure-related major complication (3% versus 2%; P=0.611). Antiarrhythmic drug utility rates after ablation were not different between the 2 groups (22% versus 30%; P=0.356). Overall, AF-free survival (log-rank; P=0.206) and AF and antiarrhythmic drug-free survival (log-rank; P=0.321) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:CPVI alone is an effective rhythm control strategy with a shorter procedure time in persistent AFpatients converted to paroxysmal AF compared with CPVI with linear ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02176616.
Authors: Emmanouil Charitakis; Silvia Metelli; Lars O Karlsson; Antonios P Antoniadis; Konstantinos D Rizas; Ioan Liuba; Henrik Almroth; Anders Hassel Jönsson; Jonas Schwieler; Dimitrios Tsartsalis; Skevos Sideris; Elena Dragioti; Nikolaos Fragakis; Anna Chaimani Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Caroline H Roney; Marianne L Beach; Arihant M Mehta; Iain Sim; Cesare Corrado; Rokas Bendikas; Jose A Solis-Lemus; Orod Razeghi; John Whitaker; Louisa O'Neill; Gernot Plank; Edward Vigmond; Steven E Williams; Mark D O'Neill; Steven A Niederer Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 4.566