Key result
Catheter ablation of incisional atrial tachycardia using remote magnetic navigation yielded similar long-term success rates in patients with acquired versus congenital heart disease (86% vs 83%, P>0.05).
Why the study?
Does catheter ablation using remote magnetic navigation have different efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with incisional atrial tachycardia after surgery for acquired versus congenital heart disease?
Cohort (n=46)
Does catheter ablation using remote magnetic navigation have different efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with incisional atrial tachycardia after surgery for acquired versus congenital heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 86% vs 83%
p-value: p=> 0.05
Catheter ablation of incisional atrial tachycardia using remote magnetic navigation is safe and effective, with comparable procedural and long-term outcomes in patients with acquired versus congenital heart disease.
May support remote magnetic navigation for incisional atrial tachycardia across disease types; leaves open need for randomized comparisons.
Aims: The objectives of this study were to assess the acute and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation in incisional atrial tachycardia (IAT) using remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in patients after heart surgery. Methods and results: A total of 46 patients with IAT after heart surgery who underwent catheter ablation using RMN were included. Of these patients, 22 patients had acquired heart disease (AHD) and the remaining 24 patients had various types of congenital heart disease (CHD). In these 46 patients, 57 re-entry circuits were found in 56 procedures. The re-entry circuits were mainly distributed in right atrium (RA). Acute success of first ablation reached in 42 of 46 (91%) patients. Mean procedure duration was 115 ± 39 min, ablation duration was 678 (920.5) s, X-ray time was 4 (4.8) min, and X-ray dose was 3 (6.0) gy cm2. After a mean follow-up of 28 ± 19 months, 39 of 46 (85%) patients were free from IAT. No major complications were observed. There were no significant differences in procedure durations (AHD 113 ± 40 min vs. CHD 119 ± 38 min), ablation durations [AHD 643 (1027) s vs. CHD 712 (929) s], X-ray time [AHD 4 (4.5) min vs. CHD 4 (5.0) min], circuits in RA (AHD 85% vs. CHD 86%), acute success rates (AHD 91% vs. CHD 92%), and long-term success rates (AHD 86% vs. CHD 83%) between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Catheter ablation of IAT in patients after heart surgery using RMN is safe and effective. No significant differences related to success rates and procedure characteristics were found between patients with AHD and CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Incisional atrial tachycardia (IAT) after heart surgery (n=46). Acquired heart disease (AHD) vs. Congenital heart disease (CHD) was evaluated on Long-term success rate (freedom from IAT) (p=> 0.05). Catheter ablation of incisional atrial tachycardia using remote magnetic navigation yielded similar long-term success rates in patients with acquired versus congenital heart disease (86% vs 83%, P>0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: