Department of Electrophysiology, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, St. David's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.
Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Center, Bad Neustadt, Germany.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jul 19;68(3):274-282. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.04.015. Epub 2016 May 6.
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).
非随机研究报告,对于持续性房颤和长期持续性房颤,与肺静脉窦隔离(PVAI)相比,基于局灶激动和转子调制(FIRM)的消融具有更好的疗效。
本研究旨在比较FIRM 消融联合或不联合 PVAI 与 PVAI 加非 PV 触发消融治疗随机持续性房颤和长期持续性房颤患者的疗效。
首次消融的非阵发性房颤(AF)患者被随机分为仅 FIRM 消融组(组 1)、FIRM+PVAI 消融组(组 2)或 PVAI+后墙+非 PV 触发消融组(组 3)。主要终点是无房性心动过速/房颤。次要终点是急性手术成功,定义为房颤终止、≥10%减慢或组织成房性心动过速。
共 3 个中心纳入 113 例患者;组 1 29 例,组 2 和组 3 各 42 例。组 1 因无效而提前终止入组。所有组 1 和 2 患者均检测到局灶驱动或转子。组 3 的手术时间明显短于组 1 和 2(p<0.001)。在组 1 和 2 中,仅行转子消融后,12 例(41%)和 11 例(26%)患者急性成功。在 12±7 个月的随访后,组 1、2 和 3 中分别有 4 例(14%)、22 例(52.4%)和 32 例(76%)患者在停用抗心律失常药物后无房颤/房性心动过速(对数秩检验 p<0.0001)。组 3 患者的成功率明显高于组 1(p<0.001)和组 2(p=0.02)。
仅行转子消融的结果较差。PVAI+转子消融的手术时间较长,疗效低于 PVAI+后墙+非 PV 触发消融。(不同消融策略在持续性和长期持续性房颤中的疗效[OASIS];NCT02533843)。