Key result
Tailored bi-atrial linear ablation linked to ~67% lower AF/AT recurrence vs. PVI alone.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to explore the safety and efficacy of tailored bi-atrial linear catheter ablation guided by electrophysiological mapping for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation.
Does a tailored bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping reduce atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia recurrence compared to pulmonary vein isolation alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=83)
No
Does a tailored bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping reduce atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia recurrence compared to pulmonary vein isolation alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.33 (95% CI 0.12–0.91)
Absolute Event Rate: 87.5% vs 65.1%
p-value: p=0.03
A tailored bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping significantly improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to standard pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Should not yet change ablation practice in persistent AF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of tailored bi-atrial ablation.
AIM: To explore the safety and efficacy of a novel strategy (bi-atrial linear catheter ablation guided by electrophysiological mapping) for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) treatment. METHODS: 83 patients with PeAF were enrolled for evaluation of ablation strategy. 43 patients were subjected to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) strategy (PVI group). 40 patients were subjected to bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping (PVI, left atrial BOX ablation, coronary sinus endocardial linear ablation, tailored left atrial anterior wall linear ablation, mitral isthmus linear ablation with necessary ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall, right atrial posterior wall linear ablation and cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation) (linear ablation group). Patients were followed up every 3 months. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 12 (4-16) months, freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia recurrence was 87.5% in the linear ablation group and 65.1% in the PVI group (P < 0.01). A Cox regression multivariate analysis revealed that ablation strategy group (tailored bi-atrial linear ablation) (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.91, P = 0.03) was the only independent predictor of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Tailored bi-atrial linear ablation strategy guided by electrophysiological mapping resulted in improved outcomes without compromising safety for patients with PeAF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=83). Tailored bi-atrial linear ablation guided by electrophysiological mapping vs. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was evaluated on Freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia recurrence (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.91, p=0.03). Tailored bi-atrial linear ablation guided by electrophysiological mapping significantly increased freedom from atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia recurrence to 87.5% compared to 65.1% with pulmonary vein isolation alone (HR 0.33).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: