Dataset Information

Current hot potatoes in atrial fibrillation ablation.

ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has evolved to the treatment of choice for patients with drug-resistant and symptomatic AF. Pulmonary vein isolation at the ostial or antral level usually is sufficient for treatment of true paroxysmal AF. For persistent AF ablation, drivers and perpetuators outside of the pulmonary veins are responsible for AF maintenance and have to be targeted to achieve satisfying arrhythmia-free success rate. Both complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation and linear ablation are added to pulmonary vein isolation for persistent AF ablation. Nevertheless, ablation failure and necessity of repeat ablations are still frequent, especially after persistent AF ablation. Pulmonary vein reconduction is the main reason for arrhythmia recurrence after paroxysmal and to a lesser extent after persistent AF ablation. Failure of persistent AF ablation mostly is a consequence of inadequate trigger ablation, substrate modification or incompletely ablated or reconducting linear lesions. In this review we will discuss these points responsible for AF recurrence after ablation and review current possibilities on how to overcome these limitations.

SUBMITTER: Roten L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3492816 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current hot potatoes in atrial fibrillation ablation.

Roten Laurent L Derval Nicolas N Pascale Patrizio P Scherr Daniel D Komatsu Yuki Y Shah Ashok A Ramoul Khaled K Denis Arnaud A Sacher Frédéric F Hocini Mélèze M Haïssaguerre Michel M Jaïs Pierre P

Current cardiology reviews 20121101 4

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has evolved to the treatment of choice for patients with drug-resistant and symptomatic AF. Pulmonary vein isolation at the ostial or antral level usually is sufficient for treatment of true paroxysmal AF. For persistent AF ablation, drivers and perpetuators outside of the pulmonary veins are responsible for AF maintenance and have to be targeted to achieve satisfying arrhythmia-free success rate. Both complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation and ...[more]

PMID: 22920482

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ablation is a widely used therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF); however, arrhythmia recurrence and repeat procedures are common. Studies examining surrogate markers of genetic susceptibility to AF, such as family history and individual AF susceptibility alleles, suggest these may be associated with recurrence outcomes. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to test the association between AF genetic susceptibility and recurrence after ablation using a comprehensive polygenic risk score for AF. METHODS:Ten centers from the AF Genetics Consortium identified patients who had undergone de novo AF ablation. AF genetic susceptibility was measured using a previously described polygenic risk score (N=929 single-nucleotide polymorphisms) and tested for an association with clinical characteristics and time-to-recurrence with a 3 month blanking period. Recurrence was defined as >30 seconds of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, height, body mass index, persistent AF, hypertension, coronary disease, left atrial size, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of ablation. RESULTS:Four thousand two hundred seventy-six patients were eligible for analysis of baseline characteristics and 3259 for recurrence outcomes. The overall arrhythmia recurrence rate between 3 and 12 months was 44% (1443/3259). Patients with higher AF genetic susceptibility were younger (P<0.001) and had fewer clinical risk factors for AF (P=0.001). Persistent AF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.22-1.58]; P<0.001), left atrial size (per cm: HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.19-1.46]; P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10%: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.97]; P=0.008) were associated with increased risk of recurrence. In univariate analysis, higher AF genetic susceptibility trended towards a higher risk of recurrence (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.99-1.18]; P=0.07), which became less significant in multivariable analysis (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.15]; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS:Higher AF genetic susceptibility was associated with younger age and fewer clinical risk factors but not recurrence. Arrhythmia recurrence after AF ablation may represent a genetically different phenotype compared to AF susceptibility.

Project description:Background: Balloon-based catheter ablations, including hot balloon ablation (HBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have rapidly emerged as alternative modalities to conventional catheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation owing to their impressive procedural advantages and better clinical outcomes and safety. However, the differences in characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and efficacy between HBA and CBA remain undetermined. This study compares the characteristic and prognosis differences between HBA and CBA. Methods: Electronic search was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and medRxiv) with specific search strategies. Eligible studies were selected based on specific criteria; all records were identified up to June 1, 2021. The mean difference, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed using predefined criteria. Results: Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with CBA, more patients in the HBA group had residual conduction and required a higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) [OR (95% CI) = 2.76 (2.02-3.77), P = 0.000]. The most frequent sites of TUA were the left superior pulmonary veins (PVs) in the HBA group vs. the right inferior PVs in the CBA group. During HBA surgery, the left and right superior PVs were more likely to have a higher fluid injection volume. Furthermore, the procedure time was longer in the HBA group than in the CBA group [weighted mean difference (95% CI) = 14.24 (4.39-24.09), P = 0.005]. Patients in the CBA group could have an increased risk of AF occurrence, and accepted more antiarrhythmic drug therapy; however, the result was insignificant. Conclusions: HBA and CBA are practical ablation approaches for AF treatment. Patients who received HBA had a higher incidence of TUA and longer procedure time. Clinical outcomes during the mid-term follow-up between HBA and CBA were comparable. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=259487, identifier: CRD42021259487.

Project description:BackgroundBalloon-based catheter ablation (CA) technologies, including hot balloon ablation (HBA), laser balloon ablation (LBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) have been introduced in recent years as alternatives to conventional radiofrequency ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the results remain controversial concerning the optimal approach. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA.MethodsClinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA were identified through a systematic search up to October 2022. The primary outcomes of interest were the recurrence of AF and procedure-related complications.ResultsTwenty clinical trials with a total of 1,995 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The NMA results demonstrated that HBA, LBA and CBA had comparable AF recurrence rates (HBA vs. CBA: odds ratio OR = 0.88, 95% credible interval CrI: 0.56-1.4; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.75-1.5; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.70-2.0) and procedure-related complications (HBA vs. CBA: OR = 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.46-2.3; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.63-2.1; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.44-2.8). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) suggested that HBA may be the optimal approach concerning the primary outcomes (SUCRA = 74.4%; 61.1%, respectively). However, HBA (40.1%) had a significantly higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) than LBA (8.5%, OR = 2.8, 95% CrI: 1.1-7.1) and CBA (11.9%, OR = 3.7, 95% CrI: 1.9-7.5). LBA required more procedure time than CBA [mean difference (MD = 32.0 min, 95% CrI: 19.0-45.0 min)] and HBA (MD = 26.0 min, 95% CrI: 5.6-45.0 min), but less fluoroscopy time than HBA (MD = -9.4 min, 95% CrI: -17.0--2.4 min).ConclusionsHBA, LBA and CBA had comparable efficacy and safety as initial treatments for AF. HBA ranked highest in the primary outcomes, but at the cost of a higher incidence of TUA and longer fluoroscopy time.Systematic review registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022381954, identifier: CRD42022381954.

Dataset Information

Current hot potatoes in atrial fibrillation ablation.

Publications

Current hot potatoes in atrial fibrillation ablation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets