Key result
General anesthesia linked to ~20 minutes shorter PVI time versus deep sedation in AF.
Why the study?
Patient respiratory stability and suppression of body movement are important for procedural success in pulmonary vein isolation using 3D mapping systems, but outcomes comparing deep sedation with general anesthesia needed evaluation.
Does general anesthesia reduce procedural time in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Cohort (n=122)
No
Does general anesthesia reduce procedural time in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Effect estimate: β -17.8
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 55.3%
p-value: p=<0.05
General anesthesia significantly reduces procedural time and improves first-pass isolation rates during pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation compared to deep sedation.
May warrant general anesthesia to improve AF PVI efficiency; extends cohort data but leaves open causality pending randomized trials.
【背景】3次元マッピングシステムを使用した肺静脈隔離術(pulmonary vein isolation:PVI)においては,患者の呼吸の安定性および体動の抑制が手技成功に重要である.【目的】本研究では,深鎮静下に施行したPVIと全身麻酔下に施行したPVIの成績を比較した.【方法】2022年12月~2024年12月に施行されたPVI症例(深鎮静群:Deep sedation group[DS群]52例,全身麻酔群:General anesthesia group[GA群]70例)を対象とし,PVIに要した時間を比較した.【結果】心房細動のタイプは,DS群とGA群で持続性心房細動が13.5% vs 21.4%(p=0.34),長期持続性心房細動が7.7% vs 12.9%(p=0.55)であり,GA群で持続の長い心房細動が多い傾向を認めたが,有意差はなかった.CTから算出した左房容積値はDS群vs GA群で78.9±33.1mL vs 101.5±35.1mLとGA群で有意に大きかった(p<0.05).PVIに要した時間はDS群vs GA群で55.3±29.9分 vs 35.0±20.6分と,GA群で有意に短縮していた(p<0.05).【結論】全身麻酔は呼吸の安定と体動抑制を通じてPVI時間短縮に寄与し,手技効率の向上に有用である可能性が示唆された.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurita et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=122). General anesthesia vs. Deep sedation was evaluated on Time required for pulmonary vein isolation (minutes) (β -17.8, p=<0.05). General anesthesia significantly reduced the time required for pulmonary vein isolation compared to deep sedation (35.0 vs 55.3 minutes) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: