Key result
ATP-induced atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation was not associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence compared to no ATP-induced AF (28% vs 31%; HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.36-2.27; p=0.84).
Why the study?
Nonpulmonary vein foci are considered important in initiating AF, leading investigators to examine adenosine triphosphate as a method for inducing non-PV ectopy.
Does adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-induced atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation predict recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,388)
Does adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-induced atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation predict recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.91 (95% CI 0.36–2.27)
Absolute Event Rate: 28% vs 31%
p-value: p=.84
Induction of atrial fibrillation by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) at the end of catheter ablation is not predictive of long-term AF recurrence.
ATP testing after PVI rarely provokes AF; leaves open whether targeting induced non-PV foci improves outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Nonpulmonary vein (non-PV) foci, in addition to pulmonary vein (PV), are considered important in initiating atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a method for inducing non-PV ectopy. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 1388 patients with AF (728 with paroxysmal AF, 650 with nonparoxysmal AF) who underwent catheter ablation. To confirm dormant PV conductions and non-PV foci, 20 or 40 mg ATP was administered intravenously at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: The ATP test induced AF in 36 of 1388 (2.6%) patients, in whom two (6%) had ectopy arising from the both atria, 15 (42%) from the right atrium (RA), and five (14%) from left atrium (LA). Because of a lack of reproducibility, the accurate location of non-PV foci was unidentified in the remaining 11 (31%) patients. Additional radiofrequency ablation to non-PV foci induced ATP administration was not performed in 34 patients. Among all 1388 patients, 64 were assigned to the ATP-AF(+) and ATP-AF(-) groups using a propensity score matching analysis (32 patients in each group). During the follow-up period, recurrent AF was observed in 9 of 32 (28%) patients in the ATP-AF(+) group and in 10 of 32 (31%) patients in the ATP-AF(-) group (log-rank p = .84, hazard ratio 0.91 [95% confidence interval 0.36-2.27]). In the univariate analysis, AF induction by ATP test was not predictive of AF recurrence (p = .78). CONCLUSION: ATP-induced AF was not associated with AF recurrence in the distant period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishimura et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,388). ATP-induced atrial fibrillation (ATP-AF(+)) vs. No ATP-induced atrial fibrillation (ATP-AF(-)) was evaluated on Recurrent atrial fibrillation (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.36-2.27, p=.84). ATP-induced atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation was not associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence compared to no ATP-induced AF (28% vs 31%; HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.36-2.27; p=0.84).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: