Department of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Cardiology/Electrophysiology, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
J Cardiol. 2019 Jul;74(1):53-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2018.12.019. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) by means of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) focuses on the PVs as the putative trigger of AF. However, which classification should be used to identify patients that are most suitable for PVI is uncertain. The aim of the study was to evaluate rhythm-, burden-, and anatomically-based classification schemes to predict success rates after up to two procedures of an ablation strategy strictly aimed at isolation of the PVs.
Patients with paroxysmal or non-longstanding persistent AF undergoing PVI-only ablation with the option of one repeat PVI in case of AF recurrence were included. An AF burden score (AFB) was determined based on frequency, episode duration, and number of previous cardioversions and then categorized as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe. Two- and three-dimensional anatomical assessment of the left atrium (LA) was performed based on pre-interventional imaging by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.
Of 195 patients analyzed, 24 presented with recurrence after the last intervention (12%, median follow up: 16±11 months). In multivariable analysis, a more than 6-fold increase of risk for AF recurrence was identified for patients with a severe compared to a mild AFB [hazard ratio: 6.241 (95% confidence interval: 1.914-20.167, p=0.002)]. In contrast to univariable analysis, no other parameter was associated with recurrence in multivariable analysis.
Burden-based (AFB) classification was identified as a significant predictor for AF recurrence even after repeat PVI, while neither anatomical parameters nor the established rhythm-based classification of paroxysmal and persistent AF did.
房颤(AF)的导管消融通过肺静脉隔离(PVI),其焦点是作为 AF 潜在触发因素的 PV。然而,尚不确定应使用哪种分类来确定最适合 PVI 的患者。本研究旨在评估节律、负担和解剖分类方案,以预测在严格针对 PV 隔离的消融策略后最多两次程序的成功率。
纳入阵发性或非长期持续性 AF 患者,行 PVI 消融,AF 复发时可选择再次 PVI。根据频率、发作持续时间和之前电复律的次数确定 AF 负担评分(AFB),然后分为轻度、中度、中度或重度。基于术前 CT 或 MRI 对左心房(LA)进行二维和三维解剖评估。
在分析的 195 例患者中,有 24 例在最后一次干预后复发(12%,中位随访:16±11 个月)。多变量分析显示,与 AFB 轻度患者相比,AFB 重度患者的 AF 复发风险增加了 6 倍以上[风险比:6.241(95%置信区间:1.914-20.167,p=0.002)]。与单变量分析相比,多变量分析中没有其他参数与复发相关。
即使在重复 PVI 后,基于负担的(AFB)分类也被确定为 AF 复发的重要预测因素,而阵发性和持续性 AF 的既定节律分类或解剖参数均与复发无关。