BackgroundPulmonary veins (PV) are often the trigger to atrial fibrillation (AF). Occasionally, left PVs converge on a common trunk (LCT) providing a simpler structure for catheter ablation.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) of patients with or without LCT.MethodsCase-control study of patients undergoing first-ever catheter ablation procedure for drug refractory PAF. The information was taken from patients' records by means of a digital collection instrument, and indexed to an online database (Syscardio(r)). Clinical characteristics and procedures were compared between patients with or without LCT (LCT x n-LCT), adopting a level of statistical significance of 5%. The primary endpoint associated with efficacy was lack of atrial arrhythmia over the follow-up time.ResultsOne hundred and seventy two patients with PAF were included in the study, 30 (17%) LCT and 142 (83%) n-LCT. The clinical characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms scale and risk scores did not differ between the groups. There was AF recurrence in 27% of PAF patients in the n-LCT group and only 10% of patients in the LCT group (OR: 3.4 p: 0.04) after a follow-up of 34 ± 17 months and 26 ± 15 months respectively.ConclusionPatients with a LCT have a significantly lower recurrence rate when compared to patients without this structure. It is mandatory to report the results of AF catheter ablation as a PV anatomical variation function.
Background: Simultaneous ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter can be performed when both arrythmias had been recorded before the procedure. However, the best approach has not been defined in case of patients referred for ablation with CTI-dependent atrial flutter, without history of AF. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and to identify predictors of the first episode of AF after ablation of CTI-dependent atrial flutter in patients without history of AF. Methods: Retrospective cohort of patients with CTI-dependent atrial flutter without history of AF undergoing catheter ablation. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients who developed AF and those who did not have AF after the procedure. Significance level was set at 5%. In the analysis of predicting factors, the primary outcome was occurrence of AF after CTI-dependent atrial flutter ablation. Results: Of a total of 227 patients undergoing ablation of CTI-dependent atrial flutter (110 with history of AF and 33 without adequate follow-up), 84 were included, and 45 (53.6%) developed post-ablation AF. The HATCH and CHA2DS2-VASC scores were not different between the groups. Recurrence rate of CTI-dependent atrial flutter and complication rate were 11.5% and 1.2%, respectively, after ablation. Conclusions: Although ablation of CTI-dependent atrial flutter is a safe and effective procedure, 50% of the patients developed AF after the procedure. However, the role of combined ablation (CTI-dependent atrial flutter plus AF) aiming at preventing AF is still uncertain.
Resumo Fundamento A estimulação ventricular direita convencional aumenta o risco de fibrilação atrial e insuficiência cardíaca em portadores de marca-passo. A estimulação do ramo esquerdo (RE) do sistema His-Purkinje pode evitar os desfechos indesejados da estimulação ventricular direita. Objetivo Analisar retrospectivamente os desfechos intraoperatórios, eletrocardiográficos e os dados clínicos do seguimento inicial de pacientes submetidos à estimulação do RE. Métodos Foram avaliados os parâmetros eletrônicos do implante e eventuais complicações precoces de 52 pacientes consecutivos submetidos à estimulação do sistema de condução. O nível de significância alfa adotado foi igual a 0,05. Resultados 52 pacientes foram submetidos a estimulação do RE do sistema His-Purkinje, obtendo sucesso em 50 procedimentos. 69,2% dos pacientes eram do sexo masculino e a mediana e intervalo interquatil da idade no momento do implante foi de 73,5 (65,0-80,0) anos. A duração do QRS pré-implante foi de 146 (104-175) ms e de 120 (112-130) ms após o procedimento. O tempo de ativação do ventrículo esquerdo foi de 78 (70-84) ms. A amplitude da onda R foi de 12,00 (7,95-15,30) mV, com limiar de estimulação de 0,5 (0,4-0,7) V × 0,4 ms e impedância de 676 (534-780) ohms. O tempo de procedimento foi de 116 (90-130) min e o tempo de fluoroscopia foi de 14,2 (10,0-21,6) min. Conclusão A estimulação cardíaca do sistema de condução His-Purkinje por meio da estimulação do ramo esquerdo é uma técnica segura e factível. Nesta casuística, apresentou alta taxa de sucesso, foi realizada com tempo de procedimento e fluoroscopia baixos e obteve medidas eletrônicas adequadas.
BackgroundThe catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is performed less frequently in women. In addition, there is divergent information in the literature regarding the effectiveness and safety for the ablative procedure to females.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes in men and women undergoing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablation.MethodsCohort study of patients undergoing first-ever PAF catheter ablation procedure refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs. The information was taken from patients’ records by means of a digital collection instrument and indexed to an online database (Syscardio®). Clinical characteristics and procedures were compared between each gender (M x F), adopting a level of statistical significance of 5%. The primary endpoint associated with efficacy was freedom from atrial arrhythmia over the follow-up time.Results225 patients were included in the study, 64 (29%) women and 161 (71%) men. Women presented more symptoms due to AF according to the CCS-SAF score (1.8 ± 0.8M x 2.3 ± 0.8F p = 0.02) and higher CHADS2 score compared to men (0.9 ± 0.8M x 1.2 ± 1F). Post-ablation recurrence occurred in 20% of the patients, with no difference based on gender (21% M x 20% F p = 0.52). The rate of complications was less than 3% for both groups (p = 0.98).ConclusionWomen undergoing the first-ever PAF catheter ablation procedure present similar complication rate and clinical outcome compared to men. These findings suggest that the current underutilization of AF catheter ablation in women may represent a discrepancy in care.
Background Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. Methods We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. Results The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.