| Literature DB >> 30622820 |
Xiao-Yu Liu1, Hai-Feng Shi2, Jie Zheng1, Ku-Lin Li1, Xiao-Xi Zhao1, Shi-Peng Dang1, Ying Wu1, Yan Cheng1, Xiao-Yan Li1, Zhi-Ming Yu1, Ru-Xing Wang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of left atrial (LA) size for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using remote magnetic navigation (RMN).Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30622820 PMCID: PMC6304809 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3096261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiol Res Pract ISSN: 2090-0597 Impact factor: 1.866
Baseline characteristics of patients.
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Total ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 51/32 | 50/32 | 101/64 | 0.951 |
| Age (years) | 58.0 ± 11.5 | 61.1 ± 9.3 | 60.7 ± 10.9 | 0.054 |
| Height (cm) | 167.5 ± 6.8 | 167.1 ± 7.9 | 167.3 ± 7.5 | 0.652 |
| Weight (kg) | 66.5 ± 8.6 | 72.8 ±18.4 | 69.6 ± 14.7 | 0.006 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.6 ± 2.1 | 25.6 ± 3.0 | 24.6 ± 2.8 | <0.001 |
| Paroxysmal/nonparoxysmal AF | 71/12 | 42/40 | 113/52 | <0.001 |
| Course of AF (month) | 36.0 (48.0) | 24.0 (60.0) | 36.0 (48.0) | 0.651 |
| Basic diseases | ||||
|
| 43 | 65 | 108 | <0.001 |
|
| 4 | 6 | 10 | 0.729 |
|
| 10 | 15 | 25 | 0.263 |
|
| 13 | 14 | 27 | 0.807 |
| LVEF (%) | 63.9 ± 4.2 | 62.3 ± 4.6 | 62.8 ± 4.5 | 0.113 |
| LA diameter (mm) | 35.0 ± 3.1 | 44.2 ± 3.2 | 39.6 ± 5.6 | <0.001 |
| Four classical pulmonary vein ostia patterns/not | 60/23 | 60/22 | 120/45 | 0.899 |
BMI: body mass index; AF: atrial fibrillation; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction. P values listed were calculated between Groups A and B.
Figure 1In vitro experiments showed the effect of different amounts of magnets deployed beyond the sheath tip on the flexibility of the catheter. (a) The work position of the RMN, catheter, and SR0 sheath. (b) and (c) The maximum catheter reach in two different orientations with one magnet deployed. (d) and (e) The maximum catheter reach in two different orientations of two magnets deployed. (f) and (g) The maximum catheter reach in two different orientations with all three magnets deployed.
Procedural parameters.
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Total ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure duration (min) | 143.9 ± 31.5 | 139.3 ± 25.1 | 141.6 ± 28.5 | 0.295 |
| Duration from mapping begin to ablation finish (min) | 100.3 ± 30.1 | 95.7 ± 25.9 | 98.0 ± 28.4 | 0.289 |
| Total X-ray time (sec) | 422.0 (228.0) | 468.0 (190.0) | 432.0 (193.5) | 0.399 |
| Total X-ray dose (gy·cm2) | 17.1 (11.0) | 23.9 (19.4) | 20.9 (18.4) | <0.001 |
| X-ray time during mapping and ablation (sec) | 37.0 (99.0) | 12.0 (30.1) | 23.0 (58.0) | <0.001 |
| X-ray dose during mapping and ablation (gy·cm2) | 1.4 (2.7) | 0.7 (2.1) | 1.0 (2.2) | 0.013 |
| Patients using X-ray during mapping and ablation | 80 | 68 | 148 | 0.01 |
| Patients adjust sheath during mapping and ablation | 47 | 21 | 68 | <0.001 |
| Patients adjust sheath for several times during mapping and ablation | 13 | 2 | 15 | 0.007 |
| Times of adjust sheath during mapping and ablation | 1.0 (1.0) | 0.0 (1.0) | 0.0 (1.0) | <0.001 |
| Heparin | 6500.0 ± 1095.4 | 6073.2 ± 1331.3 | 5960.6 ± 1334.3 | 0.283 |
| Complications (minor) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| Complications (major) | 0 | 0 | 0 | – |
| LA volume mapped by C3 (ml) | 91.8 ± 15.7 | 129.3 ± 35.6 | 109.9 ± 35.2 | <0.001 |
C3: Carto 3 system; LA: left atrial. P values listed were calculated between Groups A and B.
Long-term follow-up.
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Total ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up (month) | 27.0 (21.0) | 20.0 (18.3) | 24.0 (20.0) | 0.003 |
|
| ||||
| Success of first anatomical attempt | ||||
|
| 59 | 47 | 116 | 0.065 |
|
| 52 | 31 | 83 | 0.947 |
|
| 7 | 16 | 23 | 0.262 |
|
| ||||
| Recurrence | ||||
|
| 19 | 34 | 53 | 0.009 |
|
| 13 | 15 | 28 | 0.036 |
|
| 6 | 19 | 25 | 0.978 |
|
| ||||
| Long-term success (%) | ||||
|
| 77.1 | 58.5 | 67.9 | 0.009 |
|
| 81.7 | 64.3 | 75.2 | 0.036 |
|
| 50.0 | 52.5 | 51.9 | 0.978 |
AF: atrial fibrillation. P values listed were calculated between normal group and abnormal group.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier curves of recurrence-free survival after primary successful ablation. (a) Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrate recurrence-free survival for patients with small left atrial (LA) group and large LA group. (i) Patients with LA diameter <40 mm, (ii) patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm, (iii) patients with LA diameter <40 mm censored, and (iv) patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm censored. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrate recurrence-free survival for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) group and nonparoxysmal AF group. (i) Patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, (ii) patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, (iii) patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation censored, and (iv) patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation censored. (c) Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrate recurrence-free survival for patients with paroxysmal AF in small LA group and large LA group. (i) Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter <40 mm, (ii) paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm, (iii) paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter <40 mm censored, and (iv) paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm censored. (d) Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrate recurrence-free survival for patients with nonparoxysmal AF in small LA group and large LA group. (i) Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter <40 mm, (ii) nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm, (iii) nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter <40 mm censored, and (iv) nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation patients with LA diameter ≥40 mm censored.
Multivariate analysis with logistic regression.
| Variables | OR | 95% C.I |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Gender | Male vs. female | 1.2 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 0.771 |
| Age (years) | <60 vs. ≥60 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 0.904 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | <24 vs. ≥24 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 6.3 | 0.301 |
| Paroxysmal AF | Yes vs. No | 1.8 | 0.5 | 6.7 | 0.357 |
| LA diameter (mm) | <40 vs. ≥40 | 7.3 | 1.7 | 31.0 | 0.007 |
| Basic diseases | Yes vs. No | 0.8 | 0.2 | 4.0 | 0.815 |
| Four classical pulmonary vein ostia patterns | Yes vs. No | 0.5 | 0.2 | 1.6 | 0.234 |
| Procedure duration (min) | <141.6 vs. ≥141.6 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 14.6 | 0.163 |
| Duration from mapping begin to ablation finish (min) | <98.0 vs. ≥98.0 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 10.7 | 0.248 |
| Total X-ray time (sec) | <432.0 vs. ≥432.0 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 2.3 | 0.515 |
BMI: body mass index; AF: atrial fibrillation; LA: left atrial; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3Fluoroscopic views in anteroposterior projection showing the special position of the sheath and RMT catheter. (a) The sheath (ii) points to the left and the catheter (i) points to the right. (b) The sheath (i) drags from the left atrial (LA) while the catheter (ii) remains in the LA. (c) The sheath (ii) extends to the LA roof and the catheter (i) makes a circular.