Why the study?
Catheter ablation for persistent or long-standing persistent AF is associated with unsatisfying success rates, prompting a review of recent literature on progress in this setting.
Current mapping technologies offer additional tools for identifying the putative mechanism underlying atrial fibrillation, but the optimal ablation strategy for persistent AF remains unknown.
Suboptimal success rates for persistent AF ablation warrant caution; leaves open validation of emerging techniques in prospective trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Percutaneous catheter ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation. However, catheter ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation is associated with unsatisfying success rates. This review aims to summarize the recent literature on the progress of catheter ablation among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we outline the potential future therapeutic techniques of catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. We highlight the innovative techniques (rotor mapping, substrate mapping, delayed enhancement MRI, and high-resolution mapping catheter) of current approaches and optimal procedural endpoint for persistent atrial fibrillation. SUMMARY: In summary, the optimal catheter ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation remains unknown. Current data highlight the need for a better understanding of the substrate and mechanisms of arrhythmia maintenance in this population. Current mapping technologies offer additional tools (improved automatic algorithm for annotation, multiple electrode mapping, high-resolution mapping, and application of different processing techniques) for identifying the putative mechanism underlying atrial fibrillation. Further prospective studies are needed for the optimal procedural endpoint and the recent innovative techniques and their clinical benefits in ablation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: