Choi Young, Lim Byounghyun, Yang Song-Yi, Yang So-Hyun, Kwon Oh-Seok, Kim Daehoon, Kim Yun Gi, Park Je-Wook, Yu Hee Tae, Kim Tae-Hoon, Yang Pil-Sung, Uhm Jae-Sun, Shim Jamin, Kim Sung Hwan, Sung Jung-Hoon, Choi Jong-Il, Joung Boyoung, Lee Moon-Hyoung, Kim Young-Hoon, Oh Yong-Seog, Pak Hui-Nam
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Cardiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea.
Korean Circ J. 2022 Sep;52(9):699-711. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2022.0113. Epub 2022 Jul 11.
We investigated whether extra-pulmonary vein (PV) ablation targeting a high maximal slope of the action potential duration restitution curve (Smax) improves the rhythm outcome of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) ablation.
In this open-label, multi-center, randomized, and controlled trial, 178 PeAF patients were randomized with 1:1 ratio to computational modeling-guided virtual Smax ablation (V-Smax) or empirical ablation (E-ABL) groups. Smax maps were generated by computational modeling based on atrial substrate maps acquired during clinical procedures in sinus rhythm. Smax maps were generated during the clinical PV isolation (PVI). The V-Smax group underwent an additional extra-PV ablation after PVI targeting the virtual high Smax sites.
After a mean follow-up period of 12.3±5.2 months, the clinical recurrence rates (25.6% vs. 23.9% in the V-Smax and the E-ABL group, p=0.880) or recurrence appearing as atrial tachycardia (11.1% vs. 5.7%, p=0.169) did not differ between the 2 groups. The post-ablation cardioversion rate was higher in the V-Smax group than E-ABL group (14.4% vs. 5.7%, p=0.027). Among antiarrhythmic drug-free patients (n=129), the AF freedom rate was 78.7% in the V-Smax group and 80.9% in the E-ABL group (p=0.776). The total procedure time was longer in the V-Smax group (p=0.008), but no significant difference was found in the major complication rates (p=0.497) between the groups.
Unlike a dominant frequency ablation, the computational modeling-guided V-Smax ablation did not improve the rhythm outcome of the PeAF ablation and had a longer procedure time.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02558699.
我们研究了针对动作电位时程恢复曲线最大斜率(Smax)较高处的肺静脉外(PV)消融是否能改善持续性心房颤动(PeAF)消融的节律结果。
在这项开放标签、多中心、随机对照试验中,178例PeAF患者按1:1比例随机分为计算模型引导的虚拟Smax消融(V-Smax)组或经验性消融(E-ABL)组。Smax图通过基于窦性心律临床操作期间获取的心房基质图的计算模型生成。Smax图在临床肺静脉隔离(PVI)期间生成。V-Smax组在PVI后针对虚拟高Smax部位进行额外的肺静脉外消融。
平均随访12.3±5.2个月后,两组的临床复发率(V-Smax组和E-ABL组分别为25.6%和23.9%,p = 0.880)或表现为房性心动过速的复发率(11.1%对5.7%,p = 0.169)无差异。V-Smax组消融后复律率高于E-ABL组(14.4%对5.7%,p = 0.027)。在未使用抗心律失常药物的患者(n = 129)中,V-Smax组的房颤无复发率为78.7%,E-ABL组为80.9%(p = 0.776)。V-Smax组的总手术时间更长(p = 0.008),但两组主要并发症发生率无显著差异(p = 0.497)。
与优势频率消融不同,计算模型引导的V-Smax消融未改善PeAF消融的节律结果,且手术时间更长。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02558699。