Search

Background We evaluated long-term outcome of isolation of pulmonary veins, left atrial posterior wall, and superior vena cava, including time to recurrence and prevalent triggering foci at repeat ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with or without cardiovascular comorbidities. Methods and Results A total of 1633 consecutive patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that were arrhythmia-free for 2 years following the index ablation were classified into: group 1 (without comorbidities); n=692 and group 2 (with comorbidities); n=941. We excluded patients with documented ablation of areas other than pulmonary veins, the left atrial posterior wall, and the superior vena cava at the index procedure. At 10 years after an average of 1.2 procedures, 215 (31%) and 480 (51%) patients had recurrence with median time to recurrence being 7.4 (interquartile interval [IQI] 4.3-8.5) and 5.6 (IQI 3.8-8.3) years in group 1 and 2, respectively. A total of 201 (93.5%) and 456 (95%) patients from group 1 and 2 underwent redo ablation; 147/201 and 414/456 received left atrial appendage and coronary sinus isolation and 54/201 and 42/456 had left atrial lines and flutter ablation. At 2 years after the redo, 134 (91.1%) and 391 (94.4%) patients from group 1 and 2 receiving left atrial appendage/coronary sinus isolation remained arrhythmia-free whereas sinus rhythm was maintained in 4 (7.4%) and 3 (7.1%) patients in respective groups undergoing empirical lines and flutter ablation ( P <0.001). Conclusions Very late recurrence of atrial fibrillation after successful isolation of pulmonary veins, regardless of the comorbidity profile, was majorly driven by non-pulmonary vein triggers and ablation of these foci resulted in high success rate. However, presence of comorbidities was associated with significantly earlier recurrence.

Background: This study examined incidence of AF following cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation alone or CTI plus prophylactic pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients presenting with isolated atrial flutter (AFL) with no history of AF., Methods and Results: We enrolled 216 patients with isolated typical atrial flutter and randomized them to CTI alone (group 1, n = 108, 61.2 ± 9.7 year, 75% male) or CTI+PVI ablation (group 2, n = 108, 62.4 ± 9.3 year, 73% male). Insertible loop recorder (ILR) was implanted in 21 and 19 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Remaining patients were monitored with event recorders, ECG, 7-day Holter. Follow-up period was for 18 ± 6 months. Compared to group 1, group 2 had significantly longer procedural duration (75.9 ± 33 min vs. 161 ± 48 min [P < 0.001]) and fluoroscopy time (15.9 ± 12.3 min vs. 56.4+21 min [P < 0.001]). At the end of follow-up, 65 (60.2%) in group 1 and 77 (71.3%) in group 2 were arrhythmia free off-AAD (log-rank P = 0.044). A subgroup analysis was performed with 55 year age cut-off. In the <55 age group the CTI only population had similar success as in CTI+PVI, (21 of 24 [83.3%] vs. 19 of 22 [86.4%], respectively, log-rank P = 0.74). In the ≥55 group, having CTI+PVI showed significantly higher success compared to CTI only; 45 of 84 (53.6%) were AF/AT free in CTI only group versus 58 of 86 (67.4%) with CTI+PVI (log-rank P = 0.029)., Conclusion: Prophylactic PVI reduced new-onset AF in patients with lone atrial flutter., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: It is unclear whether extended pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) plus nonpulmonary vein (non-PV) trigger elimination prevents more arrhythmia recurrence than PVAI alone in patients with mechanical mitral valve (MMV) undergoing AF ablation. This study compared the efficacy and long-term outcome of 2 ablation strategies--PVAI alone versus extended PVAI plus non-PV trigger elimination--for the treatment of AF in patients with MMV., Methods and Results: One hundred and nine consecutive AF patients with MMV were divided into 2 groups: standard PVAI was performed in group 1 (N = 45); in group 2 (N = 64) PVAI was extended to the LA posterior wall, LA septum, and CS; and all non-PV triggers were eliminated. Patients were followed up for 3 years. At the 12th month, 7 (15.6%) patients in group 1, and 39 (60.9%) patients in group 2 were arrhythmia free (log-rank P < 0.001). Four patients (8.9%; 3 cases of AT and 1 case of AF) from group 1, and 12 patients (18.8%; 9 cases of AT, and 3 cases of AFL) from group 2 experienced very late recurrence. At 36 ± 7 months follow-up, the cumulative recurrence after a single procedure was 42/45 (93.3%) in group 1, and 37/64 (57.8%) in group 2 (log-rank P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Compared with the standard PVAI alone, a strategy including extended PVAI and non-PV trigger elimination is associated with a higher 12-month and long-term arrhythmia-free survival in patients with MMV undergoing AF ablation. Very late recurrence may occur years after the initial procedure with focal AT as the most common type of recurrent arrhythmia., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have been proven effective in several clinical trials., Purpose: To summarize evidence about the effectiveness of ICDs versus standard medical therapy for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in different age groups of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Cardiosource, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1970 to April 2010) were searched with no language restrictions., Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify randomized, controlled trials of prophylactic ICD versus medical therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction that provided data about mortality outcomes for different age groups., Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers assessed risk for bias of trials and extracted patient and study characteristics and hazard ratios (HRs) relevant to all-cause mortality., Data Synthesis: Five trials (MADIT-II, DEFINITE, DINAMIT, SCD-HeFT, and IRIS) that enrolled 5783 patients (44% were elderly) were included. The primary analysis, which excluded the 2 trials enrolling patients early after acute myocardial infarction (DINAMIT and IRIS), found that prophylactic ICD therapy reduced mortality in younger patients (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.83]; P < 0.001). A smaller survival benefit was found in elderly patients (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91]) that was not confirmed when MADIT-II patients older than 70 years were excluded or when data from DINAMIT and IRIS were included [corrected]., Limitations: Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available. Adjustment for differences in comorbid conditions and medical therapies among patients enrolled in the trials was not possible., Conclusion: Available data suggest that prophylactic ICD therapy may be less beneficial for elderly patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction than for younger patients [corrected]., Primary Funding Source: None.