首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American College of Cardiology >Ablation of rotor and focal sources reduces late recurrence of atrial fibrillation compared with trigger ablation alone: Extended follow-up of the CONFIRM trial (conventional ablation for atrial fibrillation with or without focal impulse and rotor modulation)
【24h】

Ablation of rotor and focal sources reduces late recurrence of atrial fibrillation compared with trigger ablation alone: Extended follow-up of the CONFIRM trial (conventional ablation for atrial fibrillation with or without focal impulse and rotor modulation)

机译:与仅单独触发消融相比,消融转子和局灶源可减少房颤的晚期复发:CONFIRM试验的扩展随访(常规消融用于有或没有局灶性脉冲和转子调制的房颤)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine if ablation that targets patient-specific atrial fibrillation (AF)-sustaining substrates (rotors or focal sources) is more durable than trigger ablation alone at preventing late AF recurrence. Background Late recurrence substantially limits the efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation for AF and is associated with pulmonary vein reconnection and the emergence of new triggers. Methods Three-year follow-up was performed of the CONFIRM (Conventional Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation With or Without Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation) trial, in which 92 consecutive patients with AF (70.7% persistent) underwent novel computational mapping. Ablation comprised source (focal impulse and rotor modulation [FIRM]) and then conventional ablation in 27 patients (FIRM guided) and conventional ablation alone in 65 patients (FIRM blinded). Patients were followed with implanted electrocardiographic monitors when possible (85.2% of FIRM-guided patients, 23.1% of FIRM-blinded patients). Results FIRM mapping revealed a median of 2 (interquartile range: 1 to 2) rotors or focal sources in 97.7% of patients during AF. During a median follow-up period of 890 days (interquartile range: 224 to 1,563 days), compared to FIRM-blinded therapy, patients receiving FIRM-guided ablation maintained higher freedom from AF after 1.2 ± 0.4 procedures (median 1; interquartile range: 1 to 1) (77.8% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.001) and a single procedure (p < 0.001) and higher freedom from all atrial arrhythmias (p = 0.003). Freedom from AF was higher when ablation directly or coincidentally passed through sources than when it missed sources (p < 0.001). Conclusions FIRM-guided ablation is more durable than conventional trigger-based ablation in preventing 3-year AF recurrence. Future studies should investigate how ablation of patient-specific AF-sustaining rotors and focal sources alters the natural history of arrhythmia recurrence. (The Dynamics of Human Atrial Fibrillation; NCT01008722).
机译:目的这项研究的目的是确定针对患者特定房颤(AF)维持基质(转子或局灶性源)的消融是否比单独触发消融更能持久预防房颤复发。背景晚期复发实质上限制了肺静脉隔离治疗房颤的功效,并与肺静脉重新连接和新触发因素的出现有关。方法对CONFIRM(伴或不伴有局灶性脉冲和转子调制的房颤常规消融术)试验进行了为期三年的随访,其中连续92例AF患者(持续发生70.7%)接受了新的计算定位。消融包括放射源(局灶性脉冲和转子调制[FIRM]),然后是27例患者的常规消融(FIRM指导),而65例患者中的常规消融(FIRM盲)。在可能的情况下,对患者进行植入式心电监护仪的随访(85.2%的FIRM指导患者,23.1%的FIRM盲患者)。结果FIRM映射显示房颤期间97.7%的患者中位值为2个(四分位间距:1至2个)转子或灶源。与FIRM盲法治疗相比,在890天的中位随访期内(四分位数间距:224至1,563天),接受FIRM引导消融的患者在1.2±0.4程序后(第1位;四分位数间距:一对一)(77.8%vs. 38.5%,p = 0.001)和一个单一程序(p <0.001)和更高的免于所有房性心律不齐的使用(p = 0.003)。直接或同时通过消融源进行消融的自由度高于未消融时(p <0.001)。结论FIRM引导的消融术比传统的基于触发的消融术更能防止3年房颤复发。未来的研究应该研究消融患者特有的维持房颤的转子和局灶源如何改变心律失常复发的自然史。 (人心房颤动的动力学; NCT01008722)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号