Key result
Patients with clockwise atrial flutter after previous counterclockwise ablation were younger (61.6 vs 74.0 years; P=0.005) and had smaller double potential separation (111 vs 155 ms; P=0.028).
Why the study?
What are the clinical and electrophysiological differences between recurrent clockwise atrial flutter after previous counterclockwise ablation versus de novo clockwise atrial flutter?
Population
27 patients with isthmus-dependent clockwise atrial flutter, including 10 with recurrent CW AFl after…
Comparison
Radiofrequency catheter ablation for recurrent… vs Radiofrequency catheter ablation for de novo CW…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Post-ablation CW AFl occurs in younger patients with shorter interspike intervals; leaves open whether prior CCW ablation modifies substrate or reflects selection bias.
Cohort (n=27)
What are the clinical and electrophysiological differences between recurrent clockwise atrial flutter after previous counterclockwise ablation versus de novo clockwise atrial flutter?
Absolute Event Rate: 111% vs 155%
p-value: p=0.028
Recurrent clockwise atrial flutter after previous counterclockwise ablation occurs in younger patients and is associated with a smaller interspike interval after block completion compared to de novo clockwise atrial flutter.
Bun et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Isthmus-dependent clockwise atrial flutter (n=27). Previous RF catheter ablation for counterclockwise atrial flutter vs. De novo clockwise atrial flutter was evaluated on Double potential separation after ablation (ms) (p=0.028). Patients with clockwise atrial flutter after previous counterclockwise ablation were younger (61.6 vs 74.0 years; P=0.005) and had smaller double potential separation (111 vs 155 ms; P=0.028).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: