Background-Data regarding the long-term efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation are still lacking. Methods and Results-Two hundred four consecutive patients symptomatic for paroxysmal or persistent/permanent AF were randomly assigned to 2 different ablation schemes: pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and PVI plus left linear lesions (LL). Primary end point was to assess the maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) after procedures 1 and 2 in the absence of antiarrhythmic drugs in a long-term follow-up of at least 3 years. Paroxysmal AF-With a single procedure at 12-month follow-up, 46% of patients treated with PVI maintained SR, whereas at 3-year follow-up, 29% were in SR; using the "PVI plus LL" at the 12-month follow-up, 57% of patients were in SR, whereas at the 3-year follow-up, 53% remained in SR. After a second procedure, the long-term overall success rate without antiarrhythmic drugs was 62% with PVI and 85% with PVI plus LL. Persistent/Permanent AF-With a single procedure at the 12-month follow-up, 27% of patients treated with PVI were in SR, whereas at the 3-year follow-up, 19% maintained SR; using the PVI plus LL with a single procedure at the 12-month follow-up 45% of patients were in SR, whereas at the 3-year follow-up, 41% remained in SR. After a second procedure, the long-term overall success rate without antiarrhythmic drugs was 39% with PVI and 75% with PVI plus LL. Conclusions-A long-term follow-up of AF ablation shows that short-term results cannot be considered permanent because AF recurrences are still present after the first year especially in patients who have had "PVI" strategy. PVI isolation plus LL is superior to the PVI strategy in maintaining SR without antiarrhythmic drugs after procedures 1 and 2 both in paroxysmal and persistent AF.
In this long-term follow-up study, no patient died of sudden death nor developed ARVD; two-thirds of the patients were asymptomatic, and, in half of the patients, ectopy had disappeared. Focal fatty replacement in the right ventricle was present in most.
RFCA was successful in restoring long-term sinus rhythm and improving symptomatic status in most HCM patients with refractory AF, including the subset with proven sarcomere gene mutations, although redo procedures were often necessary. Younger HCM patients with small atrial size and mild symptoms proved to be the best RFCA candidates, likely due to lesser degrees of atrial remodelling.
PVI performed with a new irrigated catheter did not reduce significantly the SCL risk when compared to a standard irrigated catheter. Intraprocedural ACT reduces the SCL risk of 0.4% for each point of ACT increase. For ACT > 320 seconds no SCL occurred. Finally, compared to a standard irrigated catheter, PVI performed with a new irrigation design catheter reduces significantly saline volume infusion.
Electrical activity during AF showed a significant spatial inhomogeneity, which was more evident in patients with paroxysmal AF. The mean FF intervals did not correlate with the mean ERPs.
The outcome of AF ablation over more than 10 years is characterized by a low incidence of progression towards permanent AF. Greater LA anteroposterior diameter related to arrhythmic recurrences, while blood pressure, BMI, and fasting blood glucose control emerged as predictors of sinus rhythm maintenance. Eventually, QoL improved significantly over the follow-up.
Linear cryoablation with lesions connecting the four pulmonary veins and the mitral annulus is effective in restoration and maintenance of SR in patients with heart valve disease and chronic AF. Limited left atrial cryoablation may represent a valid alternative to the maze procedure, reducing myocardial ischemic time and risk of bleeding.
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.