From the Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, St. David's Medical Center, Austin (S.M., P.M., C.T., C.G., D.G.D.R., L.D.B., A.N.); Dell Medical School, Austin, TX (S.M., A.N.); Electrophysiology and Arrhythmia Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco (A.N.); MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH (A.N.); and Division of Cardiology, Stanford University, CA (A.N.).
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Mar;11(3):e005789. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005789.
This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with and without focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Extensive literature search was performed for studies reporting outcomes of PVI alone and PVI+FIRM procedures. For PVI alone, only randomized trials conducted in the past 3 years reporting single-procedure off-antiarrhythmic drugs success rate at ≥12-month follow-up were included. In PVI+FIRM group, all published studies reporting single-procedure off-antiarrhythmic drugs success rate with at least 1-year follow-up were identified. Meta-analytic estimates were derived using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, and pooled estimates of success rate (95% confidence interval) were computed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran test and . Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fifteen trials were included, 10 with PVI+FIRM (n=511, nonrandomized prospective design), and 5 with PVI-only trials (n=295, randomized trials). All patients in PVI-only trials had 100% nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, except 1 study, and no prior ablations. About 24% of PVI+FIRM population had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. After 15.9±5.5 (median 12) months follow-up, the off-antiarrhythmic drugs pooled success rate was 50% in FIRM+PVI (95% confidence interval, 28%-72%) and 58% in PVI (95% confidence interval, 46%-71%). Difference in effect size between groups was not statistically significant (=0.21). No significant heterogeneity (total or within group) was observed in this meta-analysis (negative values considered equal to zero).
The overall pooled estimate did not show any therapeutic benefit of PVI+FIRM approach over PVI alone, which suggests the need to reevaluate the clinical use of FIRM ablation in atrial fibrillation.
本荟萃分析系统评估了肺静脉隔离(PVI)联合和不联合局灶性冲动和转子调制(FIRM)消融治疗房颤的结果。
广泛检索了报道 PVI 单独和 PVI+FIRM 手术结果的研究。对于 PVI 单独治疗,仅纳入了过去 3 年进行的、报告单步抗心律失常药物治疗成功率(12 个月以上随访)的随机试验。在 PVI+FIRM 组中,确定了所有报告至少 1 年随访时单步抗心律失常药物治疗成功率的已发表研究。使用 DerSimonian 和 Laird 随机效应模型得出荟萃分析估计值,并计算成功率(95%置信区间)的合并估计值。使用 Cochran 检验和 I² 评估统计学异质性。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估研究质量。纳入了 15 项试验,其中 10 项为 PVI+FIRM(n=511,非随机前瞻性设计),5 项为 PVI 单独治疗试验(n=295,随机试验)。除了 1 项研究外,所有 PVI 单独治疗试验的患者均为 100%非阵发性房颤,且均无既往消融史。大约 24%的 PVI+FIRM 患者为阵发性房颤。在 15.9±5.5(中位数 12)个月的随访后,FIRM+PVI 组的抗心律失常药物停药后成功率为 50%(95%置信区间,28%-72%),PVI 组为 58%(95%置信区间,46%-71%)。组间效应大小差异无统计学意义(=0.21)。本荟萃分析未观察到总异质性(或组内异质性)(负 值视为零)。
总体合并估计值未显示 PVI+FIRM 方法较 PVI 单独治疗有任何治疗益处,这表明需要重新评估 FIRM 消融在房颤中的临床应用。