Aims Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed by many techniques with varying success rates. This may be due to ablation techniques, patient demographics, comorbidities, and trial design. We conducted a meta-regression of studies of PsAF ablation to elucidate the factors affecting atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. Methods and results Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. A meta-regression was performed. Fifty-eight studies (6767 patients) were included. Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation reduced freedom from AF by 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) −15 to −2.3, P = 0.009). Left atrial appendage [LAA isolation (three study arms)] increased freedom from AF by 39.5% (95% CI 9.1–78.4, P = 0.008). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) (eight study arms) increased freedom from AF by 19.4% (95% CI 3.3–38.1, P = 0.017). Linear ablation or ganglionated plexi ablation resulted in no significant effect on freedom from AF. More extensive ablation increased intraprocedural AF termination; however, intraprocedural AF termination was not associated with improved outcomes. Increased left atrial diameter was associated with a reduction in freedom from AF by 4% (95% CI −6.8% to −1.1%, P = 0.007) for every 1 mm increase in diameter. Conclusion Linear ablation, PWI, and CFAE ablation improves intraprocedural AF termination, but such termination does not predict better long-term outcomes. Study arms including PWI or LAA isolation in the lesion set were associated with improved outcomes in terms of freedom from AF; however, further randomized trials are required before these can be routinely recommended. Left atrial size is the most important marker of AF chronicity influencing outcomes.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an effective treatment option for patients with severe degenerative aortic valve stenosis who are high risk for conventional surgery. Computed tomography (CT) performed prior to TAVI can detect pathologies that could influence outcomes following the procedure, however the incidence, cost, and clinical impact of incidental findings has not previously been investigated. 279 patients underwent CT; 188 subsequently had TAVI and 91 were declined. Incidental findings were classified as clinically significant (requiring treatment), indeterminate (requiring further assessment), or clinically insignificant. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality up to 3 years. Costs incurred by additional investigations resultant to incidental findings were estimated using the UK Department of Health Payment Tariff. Incidental findings were common in both the TAVI and medical therapy cohorts (54.8 vs. 70.3%; P = 0.014). Subsequently, 45 extra investigations were recommended for the TAVI cohort, at an overall average cost of £32.69 per TAVI patient. In a univariate model, survival was significantly associated with the presence of a clinically significant or indeterminate finding (HR 1.61; P = 0.021). However, on multivariate analysis outcomes after TAVI were not influenced by any category of incidental finding. Incidental findings are common on CT scans performed prior to TAVI. However, the total cost involved in investigating these findings is low, and incidental findings do not independently identify patients with poorer outcomes after TAVI. The discovery of an incidental finding on CT should not necessarily influence or delay the decision to perform TAVI.
Objectives This meta-analysis examined the ability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to prevent atrial fibrillation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the patients not receiving PVI nevertheless underwent a procedure. Background PVI is a commonly used procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and its efficacy has usually been judged against therapy with anti-arrhythmic drugs in open-label trials. There have been several RCTs of AF ablation in which both arms received an ablation, but the difference between the treatment arms was inclusion or omission of PVI. These trials of an ablation strategy with PVI versus an ablation strategy without PVI may provide a more rigorous method for evaluating the efficacy of PVI. Methods Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing ablation including PVI with ablation excluding PVI. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia at 12 months. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator. Results Overall, 6 studies (n = 610) met inclusion criteria. AF recurrence was significantly lower with an ablation including PVI than an ablation without PVI (RR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.89; p = 0.0147; I 2 = 79.7%). Neither the type of AF (p = 0.48) nor the type of non-PVI ablation (p = 0.21) was a significant moderator of the effect size. In 3 trials the non-PVI ablation procedure was performed in both arms, whereas PVI was performed in only 1 arm. In these studies, AF recurrence was significantly lower when PVI was included (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.73; p = 0.007, I 2 78%). Conclusions In RCTs where both arms received an ablation, and therefore an expectation amongst patients and doctors of benefit, being randomized to PVI had a striking effect, reducing AF recurrence by a half.
Syncope during coughing is a result of hypotension, rather than bradycardia. Coughing during HUT is a useful test in patients suspected to have cough syncope but in whom the history is not conclusive.
In most patients, the iterative method does not clearly specify one AVD. In all the patients, agreement on the ideal AVD between skilled observers viewing identical images is poor. The iterative protocol may successfully exclude some extremely unsuitable AVDs, but so might simply accepting factory default. Irreproducibility of the gold standard also prevents alternative physiological optimization methods from being validated honestly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.