Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2023 Apr;34(4):860-868. doi: 10.1111/jce.15845. Epub 2023 Feb 22.
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common therapeutic strategy for patients with either paroxysmal AF (PAF) or persistent AF (persAF), but long-term ablation success rates are imperfect. Maintenance of sinus rhythm immediately before ablation with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy has been associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing ablation. Amiodarone has superior efficacy relative to other AADs. Whether failure of amiodarone to maintain sinus rhythm before ablation for either PAF or persAF is associated with poor outcomes is unknown.
A total of 307 patients who received amiodarone in a 1-year window before undergoing catheter ablation for AF were included. Patients were divided into amiodarone success (n = 183) and amiodarone failure (n = 124) groups based on the response to pre-ablation amiodarone treatment. Analysis of procedural outcomes as a function of response to amiodarone therapy was performed. Patients were followed for at least 12 months postablation, to assess outcomes (adverse events and arrhythmia recurrence). Procedural success was defined by the absence of documented arrhythmia (>30 s) without any antiarrhythmic agents beyond a 90-day blanking period.
Following ablation for either PAF or persAF, freedom from any recurrent atrial arrhythmia at 1 year was 57.7% for the entire cohort. One-year freedom from recurrent arrhythmia in the amiodarone success group was comparable to that in the amiodarone failure group (55.7% vs. 60.5%; p = .54). Success rates following ablation did not vary by the response to amiodarone when analyzed for PAF or persAF subgroups.
Failure to restore and maintain sinus rhythm with amiodarone before ablation for either PAF or persAF is not a predictor of ablation procedural failure. Amiodarone failure alone should not deter practitioners from considering ablation therapy for patients with AF.
导管消融术是阵发性房颤(PAF)或持续性房颤(persAF)患者的常见治疗策略,但长期消融成功率并不完美。在消融前使用抗心律失常药物(AAD)治疗维持窦性心律与接受消融治疗的患者的治疗结果改善相关。胺碘酮相对于其他 AAD 具有更好的疗效。在 PAF 或 persAF 消融前,胺碘酮未能维持窦性心律是否与不良结果相关尚不清楚。
共纳入 307 例在接受房颤导管消融前 1 年内接受胺碘酮治疗的患者。根据对预消融胺碘酮治疗的反应,将患者分为胺碘酮治疗成功组(n=183)和胺碘酮治疗失败组(n=124)。根据胺碘酮治疗反应分析手术结果。对患者进行至少 12 个月的消融后随访,以评估结果(不良事件和心律失常复发)。消融后无记录的心律失常(>30s)且在 90 天空白期内无需任何抗心律失常药物即可定义为手术成功。
在消融 PAF 或 persAF 后,整个队列 1 年时无任何复发性房性心律失常的比例为 57.7%。胺碘酮治疗成功组与胺碘酮治疗失败组 1 年时无复发性心律失常的比例相当(55.7% vs. 60.5%;p=0.54)。在分析 PAF 或 persAF 亚组时,消融后成功率不因胺碘酮的反应而有所不同。
在消融 PAF 或 persAF 前,胺碘酮不能恢复和维持窦性心律并不能预测消融手术失败。单独的胺碘酮治疗失败不应阻止医生考虑为房颤患者进行消融治疗。