Search

BACKGROUND Nonrandomized studies have reported focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation to be superior to pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) for persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare efficacy of FIRM ablation with or without PVAI versus PVAI plus non-PV trigger ablation in randomized persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients. METHODS Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing first ablation were randomized to FIRM only (group 1), FIRM + PVAI (group 2) or PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger ablation (group 3). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachycardia/AF. The secondary endpoint was acute procedural success, defined as AF termination, ≥10% slowing, or organization into atrial tachycardia. RESULTS A total of 113 patients were enrolled at 3 centers; 29 in group 1 and 42 each in groups 2 and 3. Group 1 enrollment was terminated early for futility. Focal drivers or rotors were detected in all group 1 and 2 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group 3 versus groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). In groups 1 and 2, acute success after rotor-only ablation was achieved in 12 patients (41%) and 11 (26%), respectively. After 12 ± 7 months' follow-up, 4 patients (14%), 22 (52.4%), and 32 (76%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were AF/atrial tachycardia-free while off antiarrhythmic drugs (log-rank p

Background Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation targets sites that are thought to sustain atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute and mid-term outcomes of FIRM-guided only ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. Methods We prospectively enrolled patients with persistent and long-standing persistent (LSP) AF at three centers to undergo FIRM-guided only ablation. We evaluated acute procedural success (defined as AF termination, organization, or ≥10% slowing), safety (incidence of periprocedural complications), and long-term success (single-procedure freedom from atrial tachycardia [AT]/AF off antiarrhythmic drugs [AAD] after a 2-month blanking period). Results Twenty-nine patients with persistent (N = 20) and LSP (N = 9) AF underwent FIRM mapping. Rotors were presents in all patients, with a mean of 4 ± 1.2 per patient (62% were left atrial); 1 focal impulse was identified. All sources were successfully ablated, and overall acute success rate was 41% (0 AF termination, 2 AF slowing, 10 AF organization). There were no major procedure-related adverse events. After a mean 5.7 months of follow-up, single-procedure freedom from AT/AF without AADs was 17%. Conclusion In nonparoxysmal AF patients, targeted ablation of FIRM-identified rotors is not effective in obtaining AF termination, organization, or slowing during the procedure. After mid-term follow-up, the strategy of ablating FIRM-identified rotors alone did not prevent recurrence from AT/AF.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of FIRM ablation with PVAI vs PVAI plus posterior wall isolation (PWI) and non-PV trigger ablation in persistent (PeAF) and long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) patients. The procedure time was recorded to be 180.6 ± 35.9 and 124.03 ± 45.4 minutes in the FIRM+PVI and PVI + PWI + non-PV trigger ablation group respectively. At 24-month follow-up, 24% (95% CI 8.7%–37.8%) in the FIRM-ablation group and 48% (95% CI 27.6–63.3%) in the non-PV trigger ablation group remained arrhythmia-free off-antiarrhythmic drugs after a single procedure. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02533843 ).

Nonrandomized studies have reported focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation to be superior to pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) for persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation.This study sought to compare efficacy of FIRM ablation with or without PVAI versus PVAI plus non-PV trigger ablation in randomized persistent atrial fibrillation and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients.Nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing first ablation were randomized to FIRM only (group 1), FIRM + PVAI (group 2) or PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger ablation (group 3). Primary endpoint was freedom from atrial tachycardia/AF. The secondary endpoint was acute procedural success, defined as AF termination, ≥10% slowing, or organization into atrial tachycardia.A total of 113 patients were enrolled at 3 centers; 29 in group 1 and 42 each in groups 2 and 3. Group 1 enrollment was terminated early for futility. Focal drivers or rotors were detected in all group 1 and 2 patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group 3 versus groups 1 and 2 (p 0.001). In groups 1 and 2, acute success after rotor-only ablation was achieved in 12 patients (41%) and 11 (26%), respectively. After 12 ± 7 months' follow-up, 4 patients (14%), 22 (52.4%), and 32 (76%) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were AF/atrial tachycardia-free while off antiarrhythmic drugs (log-rank p 0.0001). Group 3 patients experienced higher success compared with groups 1 (p 0.001) and 2 (p = 0.02).Outcomes were poor with rotor-only ablation. PVAI + rotor ablation had significantly longer procedure time and lower efficacy than PVAI + posterior wall + non-PV trigger-ablation. (Outcome of Different Ablation Strategies in Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation [OASIS]; NCT02533843).

Introduction: Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation targets localized sources that are thought to sustain AF. In previous reports, it has been shown that FIRM is effective in terminating or organizing AF. We sought to evaluate the acute success of FIRM in patients with persistent and LSP AF undergoing ablation in our centers. Methods: This was a multicenter prospective observational study. FIRM was performed alone or before conventional ablation. Rotors were ablated as confirmed by their absence during remapping and acute success was defined as AF termination, organization or slowing 10%. Results: 57 patients were enrolled (mean age 63 ± 10; 7% LSP). Rotors-only ablation was performed in 56% of patients, and preceded conventional ablation in 44%. There were no major periprocedural adverse events. No focal impulses were found, while rotors were present in all patients (3.9 ± 1.2 per patient; 66% in the LA). In the RA, the majority of rotors were in the lateral wall (53%) and in the septum (30%). In the LA, most of the rotors were in proximity of the pulmonary veins (48%), with the second most common locations being around the mitral annulus or in the septum (17% and 13% respectively). Mean procedural time for FIRM only procedures was 226 ± 52 minutes vs a median of 210 (168-240) minutes for FIRM + conventional ablation procedures (p = NS). Overall acute success was achieved in 35% of patients (3% AF termination, 16% AF organization, 16% AF slowing) with a mean RF time to complete FIRM ablation of 30 ± 15 minutes; no difference in acute success was found when comparing persistent to LSP patients (28% vs 50%; p = NS). Conventional ablation following FIRM did not significantly increase the rate of acute success (1 additional patient converted to sinus rhythm during pulmonary vein isolation). Conclusion: Rotors were present in all patients undergoing ablation for non-paroxysmal AF, most commonly the right atrial lateral wall, septum or around the pulmonary veins. Their ablation was not effective in obtaining AF organization/termination during the procedure.

What role should the state have in recognizing and regulating marriage? Until recently, liberal political theorists paid little attention to this question. Yet the challenges that the public–private boundary-crossing institution of marriage poses to liberalism are substantial. Tensions in contemporary debates suggest that these challenges remain unaddressed and thus, invite attempts to formulate a coherent and compelling model of the relationship between marriage and the liberal state. This article responds to this invitation. Marriage has long been a concern of at least some liberal thinkers. Typically they focused on the dual (contract/status) character of marriage, or its role in (re)producing gender inequality. While these critical insights are essential to any adequate account of marriage and the state, they are only part of the picture. To grasp the sources of confusion and silences in contemporary debates, and formulate a robust liberal model of marriage and the state, we must examine the functions — intended and effective — of public recognition of marriage. This examination highlights the relevance to the marriage-state relationship of familiar liberal approaches to negotiating the religion-state relationship. Drawing on these approaches and liberal feminist thought, I sketch a model of marriage and the state that aims to expand the area of protected freedom without sacrificing equality, fairness or marriage. Under the model I propose, marriage would be disestablished. The state would neither confer marital status, nor use ‘marriage’ as a category for dispersing benefits. Legitimate public welfare goals currently treated through marriage would be addressed through an intimate caregiving union status.

So long as the state defines, confers, and uses marital status as a vehicle for protecting and supporting associations of intimate caregivers, also known as families, it must offer the status to same-sex intimate caregiving couples. A commitment to equal treatment before the law demands it. Period.