Hybrid Procedure (Endo/Epicardial) versus Standard Manual Ablation in Patients Undergoing Ablation of Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results from a Single Center
机构:[1]St Davids Med Ctr, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Inst, Austin, TX USA;[2]Univ Florence, Dept Heart & Vessels, Florence, Italy;[3]Hosp Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA;[4]Capital Med Univ, Beijing Anzhen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China;首都医科大学附属安贞医院[5]Univ Milan, Milan, Italy;[6]Univ Foggia, Foggia, Italy;[7]Montefiore Hosp, Albert Einstein Coll Med, New York, NY USA;[8]Dell Med Sch, Dept Internal Med, Austin, TX USA;[9]Calif Pacific Med Ctr, San Francisco, CA USA;[10]Scripps Clin, Intervent Electrophysiol, San Diego, CA USA;[11]Stanford Univ, Div Cardiol, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA;[12]3000 N I-35,Suite 720, Austin, TX 78705 USA
Hybrid versus Endocardial Ablation for LSPAF. Introduction: Ablation of longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is the most challenging procedure in the treatment of AF, either by surgical or by percutaneous approach. Objective: We investigated the difference in success and complication rates between combined surgical epicardial and endocardial catheter ablation procedure and our standard endocardial ablation procedure. Methods and Results: Twenty-four consecutive patients (group 1) with LSPAF and enlarged left atrium (>4.5 cm) underwent a combined procedure, consisting of surgical, closed-chest, epicardial, radiofrequency ablation (nContact, NC, USA) via pericardial access, and concomitant endocardial ablation (hybrid procedure). Procedural complications and long-term outcomes were compared to those of 35 consecutive patients who refused the hybrid procedure and underwent standard endocardial only ablation (group 2). Baseline characteristics were comparable. In group 1, 1 patient (4.2%) developed post-procedural cardio-embolic stroke and 3 (12.5%) died (1 atrio-esophageal fistula, 1 fatal stroke, 1 of unknown cause in early follow-up), while no strokes or deaths occurred in group 2. Overall complication rates were higher for group 1 (P = 0.036). At 24-month follow-up, 4 (19%) patients in group 1 and 19 (54.3%) in group 2 were arrhythmia-free after a single procedure, on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (P<.001). Total procedural time (276.9 +/- 63.5 vs. 203.15 +/- 67.3 minutes) and length of hospital stay (5 [IQR 3-8] vs. 1 [IQR 1-3] days were significantly shorter for group 2 (P 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with LSPAF and enlarged left atrium, a concomitant combined surgical/endocardial ablation approach increases complication rate and does not improve outcomes when compared to extensive endocardial ablation only.
通讯机构:[1]St Davids Med Ctr, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Inst, Austin, TX USA;[8]Dell Med Sch, Dept Internal Med, Austin, TX USA;[9]Calif Pacific Med Ctr, San Francisco, CA USA;[10]Scripps Clin, Intervent Electrophysiol, San Diego, CA USA;[11]Stanford Univ, Div Cardiol, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA;[12]3000 N I-35,Suite 720, Austin, TX 78705 USA
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
Edgerton Zachary,Perini Alessandro Paoletti,Horton Rodney,et al.Hybrid Procedure (Endo/Epicardial) versus Standard Manual Ablation in Patients Undergoing Ablation of Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results from a Single Center[J].JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY.2016,27(5):524-530.doi:10.1111/jce.12926.
APA:
Edgerton, Zachary,Perini, Alessandro Paoletti,Horton, Rodney,Trivedi, Chintan,Santangeli, Pasquale...&Natale, Andrea.(2016).Hybrid Procedure (Endo/Epicardial) versus Standard Manual Ablation in Patients Undergoing Ablation of Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results from a Single Center.JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY,27,(5)
MLA:
Edgerton, Zachary,et al."Hybrid Procedure (Endo/Epicardial) versus Standard Manual Ablation in Patients Undergoing Ablation of Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results from a Single Center".JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY 27..5(2016):524-530