2011
DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(11)60025-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ganglionated Plexi Ablation for Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Driessen et al showed that atrial tachycardia was more prevalent in patients randomly assigned to GP ablation than in controls. We believe that this risk of proarrhythmia is due in part to the use of RFA, which is not tissue selective and thereby creates substrate for atrial tachycardia through myocardial injury …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Driessen et al showed that atrial tachycardia was more prevalent in patients randomly assigned to GP ablation than in controls. We believe that this risk of proarrhythmia is due in part to the use of RFA, which is not tissue selective and thereby creates substrate for atrial tachycardia through myocardial injury …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, it is not uncommon for patients to note an increase in resting heart rate for several months after AF ablation. Some centers have advocated specific targeting of the cardiac GPs in order to improve the success rate of AF ablation 56,57 . GPs can be identified by detection of a hypotensive and bradycardic response to high frequency…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 The evidence in support of this possibility is mixed, and ganglionated plexi are most likely responsible for only a subset of the observed CFAE areas. 26,27 Furthermore, we have performed a subgroup analysis to evaluate the effect of different variables (such as antiarrhythmic medication use or RA ablation) on the derived parameters and patterns. The small sample size limits the power of these analyses .…”
Section: Study Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%