Key result
Lone atrial fibrillation has numerous risk factors and triggers but lacks unique mechanisms compared to non-lone atrial fibrillation, suggesting insufficient evidence to consider it a distinct entity.
Why the study?
Is lone atrial fibrillation a distinct clinical entity with specific risk factors, triggers, and ablation outcomes?
Systematic Review (n=95)
Is lone atrial fibrillation a distinct clinical entity with specific risk factors, triggers, and ablation outcomes?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The systematic review concludes that 'lone atrial fibrillation' lacks sufficient evidence to be considered a distinct clinical entity, recommending against the continued use of the term.
BACKGROUND: Since its introduction in 1953, lone atrial fibrillation (LAF) has not been defined with any consistency, resulting in an enormous variation in the way the term is used. Inherent to this, results from studies vary considerably. Many predisposing factors and pathogenic influences have been discovered over the past years, which raise the question if the term LAF should still be used and if the treatment should be different from non-lone atrial fibrillation (non-LAF). Therefore this systematic review on LAF provides an overview of risk factors and triggers, the second part focuses on the application of catheter and surgical ablation techniques. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed database. All identified articles were screened and checked for eligibility by the two authors. Additional literature was sought by screening the references of eligible articles. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists to consider LAF as a real, isolated and useful entity. A re-definition or even avoiding the use of the term LAF might be appropriate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vroomen et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review in Lone Atrial Fibrillation (n=95). Catheter and surgical ablation was evaluated. Lone atrial fibrillation has numerous risk factors and triggers but lacks unique mechanisms compared to non-lone atrial fibrillation, suggesting insufficient evidence to consider it a distinct entity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: