Osorio Jose, Hincapie Daniela, Varley Allyson L, Silverstein Joshua R, Matos Carlos D, Thosani Amit J, Thorne Christopher, D'Souza Benjamin, Alviz Isabella, Gabr Mohamed, Rajendra Anil, Oza Saumil, Sharma Dinesh, Hoyos Carolina, Singleton Matthew J, Mareddy Chinmaya, Velasco Alejandro, Zei Paul C, Sauer William H, Romero Jorge E
HCA Florida Miami, Miami, Florida.
Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Heart Rhythm. 2025 Feb;22(2):432-442. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.094. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
High-frequency, low-tidal volume (HFLTV) ventilation increases the efficacy and efficiency of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Whether those benefits can be extrapolated to RFCA of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) is undetermined.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether using HFLTV ventilation during RFCA in patients with PeAF is associated with improved procedural and long-term clinical outcomes compared to standard ventilation (SV).
In this prospective multicenter registry (REAL-AF), patients who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + posterior wall isolation (PWI) for PeAF using either HFLTV ventilation or SV were included. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included procedural and long-term clinical outcomes and complications.
A total of 210 patients were included (HFLTV=95 vs. SV=115) in the analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Procedural time (80 [66-103.5] minutes vs 110 [85-141] minutes; P <.001), total radiofrequency (RF) time (18.73 [13.93-26.53] minutes vs 26.15 [20.30-35.25] minutes; P <.001), and pulmonary vein RF time (11.35 [8.78-16.69] minutes vs 18 [13.74-24.14] minutes; P <.001) were significantly shorter using HFLTV ventilation compared with SV. Freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias was significantly higher with HFLTV ventilation compared with SV (82.1% vs 68.7%; hazard ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval [0.21-0.82]; P = .012), indicating a 43% relative risk reduction and a 13.4% absolute risk reduction in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence. There was no difference in long-term procedure-related complications between the groups (HFLTV 1.1% vs SV 0%, P = .270).
In patients undergoing RFCA with PVI + PWI for PeAF, the use of HFLTV ventilation was associated with higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias at 12-month follow-up, with significantly shorter procedural and RF times compared to SV, while reporting a similar safety profile.
高频、低潮气量(HFLTV)通气可提高阵发性心房颤动射频导管消融(RFCA)的疗效和效率。这些益处是否能外推至持续性心房颤动(PeAF)的RFCA尚不确定。
本研究旨在评估与标准通气(SV)相比,在PeAF患者RFCA期间使用HFLTV通气是否与更好的手术及长期临床结局相关。
在这项前瞻性多中心注册研究(REAL-AF)中,纳入了使用HFLTV通气或SV接受PeAF肺静脉隔离(PVI)+后壁隔离(PWI)的患者。主要疗效结局为12个月时无所有房性心律失常。次要结局包括手术及长期临床结局和并发症。
分析共纳入210例患者(HFLTV组95例 vs. SV组115例)。两组间基线特征无差异。与SV相比,使用HFLTV通气时手术时间(80[66 - 103.5]分钟 vs 110[85 - 141]分钟;P <.001)、总射频(RF)时间(18.73[13.93 - 26.53]分钟 vs 26.15[20.30 - 35.25]分钟;P <.001)和肺静脉RF时间(11.35[8.78 - 16.69]分钟 vs 18[13.74 - 24.14]分钟;P <.001)显著缩短。与SV相比,HFLTV通气时无所有房性心律失常的比例显著更高(82.1% vs 68.7%;风险比0.41;95%置信区间[0.21 - 0.82];P =.012),表明房性心律失常复发的相对风险降低43%,绝对风险降低13.4%。两组间长期手术相关并发症无差异(HFLTV组1.1% vs SV组0%,P =.270)。
在接受PVI + PWI的PeAF患者进行RFCA时,使用HFLTV通气与12个月随访时更高的无所有房性心律失常率相关,与SV相比手术及RF时间显著缩短,同时安全性相似。