De Becker Benjamin, O'Neill Louisa, Hilfiker Gabriela, De Smet Maarten, Francois Clara, El Haddad Milad, Tavernier René, Duytschaever Mattias, Le Polain De Waroux Jean-Benoît, Knecht Sébastien
Cardiology Department, AZ Sint Jan Brugge, Bruges, Belgium.
Cardiology Department, ZAS, Antwerpen, Belgium.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2025 Aug;36(8):1733-1742. doi: 10.1111/jce.16708. Epub 2025 May 23.
The superior vena cava (SVC) is a prominent non-pulmonary vein trigger of atrial fibrillation (AF). Its isolation has been shown to be effective in paroxysmal AF (PAF) originating from SVC.
In this study, focusing on repeat procedures for recurrent PAF post-PVI, we aimed to evaluate the added value of empirical SVC isolation to PV antral re-isolation, when at least one PV reconnection is demonstrated.
Patients with recurrent PAF referred for redo procedures, and exhibiting PV reconnection, were randomly assigned to undergo either PVI alone (group 1) or PVI and SVC isolation (group 2). The primary outcome was the recurrence rate at 1-year while procedural time, fluoroscopy time, complications rate, and the presence of scar during LA mapping were secondary outcomes.
Eighty-two patients were randomized in the study (39 in group 1 and 43 in group 2). The median age was 65 ± 9 in group 1 and 62 ± 11 in group 2 (p = 0.3). The time from first AF episode to the repeat procedure was 76 and 52 months, respectively (p = 0.7). 31 patients in group 1 and 35 patients in group 2 had more than one reconnected vein. There were no significant differences in procedural and fluoroscopy times between groups. At 12-months, freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia was achieved in 69% patients in group 1% and 76% patients in group 2 (HR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.7).
It is unknown whether empirical addition of SVC isolation to PVI improves freedom of recurrence for the treatment of recurrent PAF after previous PVI. Given the small study population, the addition of SVC isolation requires further investigation in a larger randomized trial.
上腔静脉(SVC)是心房颤动(AF)一个重要的非肺静脉触发因素。已证明对起源于SVC的阵发性房颤(PAF)进行上腔静脉隔离是有效的。
在本研究中,聚焦于经导管肺静脉隔离术(PVI)后复发性PAF的再次手术,我们旨在评估当证实至少有一条肺静脉重新连接时,经验性上腔静脉隔离相对于肺静脉前庭再次隔离的附加价值。
因再次手术而转诊且存在肺静脉重新连接的复发性PAF患者被随机分配接受单纯PVI(第1组)或PVI联合上腔静脉隔离(第2组)。主要结局是1年时的复发率,而手术时间、透视时间、并发症发生率以及左心房标测期间瘢痕的存在情况为次要结局。
82例患者被随机纳入本研究(第1组39例,第2组43例)。第1组的中位年龄为65±9岁,第2组为62±11岁(p = 0.3)。从首次房颤发作到再次手术的时间分别为76个月和52个月(p = 0.7)。第1组31例患者和第2组35例患者有不止一条重新连接的静脉。两组之间的手术时间和透视时间无显著差异。在12个月时,第1组69%的患者和第2组76%的患者实现了无房性快速性心律失常(风险比0.7,95%置信区间:0.3 - 1.7)。
对于既往PVI后复发性PAF的治疗,在PVI基础上经验性增加上腔静脉隔离是否能提高复发自由度尚不清楚。鉴于研究人群规模较小,增加上腔静脉隔离需要在更大规模的随机试验中进一步研究。