Key result
Pace-capture-guided ablation yielded comparable single-procedure freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to adenosine-guided ablation (65.0% vs 67.5%; P=0.814).
Why the study?
Does a pace-capture-guided approach improve freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to an adenosine-guided approach in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Cohort (n=80)
Does a pace-capture-guided approach improve freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to an adenosine-guided approach in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Absolute Event Rate: 65% vs 67.5%
p-value: p=0.814
A pace-capture-guided approach for pulmonary vein isolation yields comparable long-term freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation as an adenosine-guided approach, though it is associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change ablation protocols; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of equivalence.
Andrade et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=80). Pace-capture-guided ablation vs. Adenosine-guided ablation was evaluated on Single procedure off antiarrhythmic drug freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation (p=0.814). Pace-capture-guided ablation yielded comparable single-procedure freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to adenosine-guided ablation (65.0% vs 67.5%; P=0.814).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: