Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, University of California San Diego Health System, 9452 Medical Center Drive, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California - San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Room 3E-417, San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2022 Jan;63(1):87-95. doi: 10.1007/s10840-021-00943-x. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
Mitral annular flutter (MAF) is a common arrhythmia after atrial fibrillation ablation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation utilizing either a left atrial anterior wall (LAAW) line or a lateral mitral isthmus (LMI) line.
We performed a systematic review for all studies that compared LAAW versus LMI lines. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) 95% confidence intervals were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively.
Four studies with a total of 594 patients were included, one of which was a randomized control trial. In the LMI ablation group, 40% of patients required CS ablation. There were no significant differences in bidirectional block (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.94-1.69) or ablation time (MD -1.5; 95% CI, -6.11-3.11), but LAAW ablation was associated with longer ablation line length (MD 11.42; 95% CI, 10.69-12.14) and longer LAA activation delay (MD 67.68; 95% CI, 33.47-101.89.14) when compared to LMI. There was no significant difference in pericardial effusions (RR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.39-20.75) between groups and more patients were maintained sinus rhythm (RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37, p = 0.02) who underwent LAAW compared to LMI.
Ablation of mitral annular flutter with a LAAW line compared to a LMI line showed no difference in rates of acute bidirectional block, ablation time, or pericardial effusion. However, LAAW ablation required a longer ablation line length, resulted in greater LAA activation delayed and was associated with more sinus rhythm maintenance, with the added advantage of avoiding ablation in the CS.
二尖瓣环扑动(MAF)是心房颤动消融后的常见心律失常。我们旨在比较利用左心房前壁(LAAW)线或外侧二尖瓣峡部(LMI)线进行导管消融的疗效和安全性。
我们对所有比较 LAAW 与 LMI 线的研究进行了系统回顾。分别测量二分类变量和连续变量的风险比(RR)和平均差(MD)95%置信区间。
共纳入 4 项研究,总计 594 例患者,其中 1 项为随机对照试验。在 LMI 消融组中,40%的患者需要 CS 消融。双向阻滞(RR 1.26;95%CI,0.94-1.69)或消融时间(MD-1.5;95%CI,-6.11-3.11)无显著差异,但与 LMI 相比,LAAW 消融与更长的消融线长度(MD 11.42;95%CI,10.69-12.14)和更长的 LAA 激活延迟(MD 67.68;95%CI,33.47-101.89)相关。两组之间心包积液(RR 0.36;95%CI,0.39-20.75)无显著差异,与 LMI 相比,更多患者维持窦性节律(RR 1.19;95%CI,1.03-1.37,p = 0.02)。
与 LMI 线相比,利用 LAAW 线消融二尖瓣环扑动在急性双向阻滞、消融时间或心包积液方面无差异。然而,LAAW 消融需要更长的消融线长度,导致更大的 LAA 激活延迟,与更多的窦性节律维持相关,并且具有避免 CS 消融的额外优势。