No abstract

on behalf of the J-RHYTHM Registry Investigators* Background--To clarify the influence of hypertension and blood pressure (BP) control on thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a post hoc analysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry was performed.

AimsAlthough contact force (CF)-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is useful, AF recurrence at long-term follow-up still remains to be resolved. The purpose of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of CF-guided CPVI and to compare residual conduction gaps during CPVI and long-term outcome between the conventional (non-CF-guided) and the CF-guided CPVI.Methods and resultsWe studied the 50 consecutive PAF patients undergoing CPVI by a ThermoCool EZ Steer catheter (conventional group, mean age 61 ± 10 years) and the other 50 consecutive PAF patients by a ThermoCool SmartTouch catheter (CF group, 65 ± 11 years). The procedure parameters and residual conduction gaps during CPVI, and long-term outcome for 12 months were compared between the two groups. Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation was successfully accomplished without any major complications in both groups. Total procedure and total fluoroscopy times were both significantly shorter in the CF group than in the conventional group (160 ± 30 vs. 245 ± 61 min, P < 0.001, and 17 ± 8 vs. 54 ± 27 min, P < 0.001, respectively). Total number of residual conduction gaps was significantly less in the CF group than in the conventional group (2.7 ± 1.7 vs. 6.3 ± 2.7, P < 0.05). The AF recurrence-free rates after CPVI during 12-month follow-up were 96% (48/50) in the CF group and 82% (41/50) in the conventional group (P = 0.02 by log rank test). Multivariate Cox regression analysis further supported this finding.ConclusionContact force-guided CPVI is safe and more effective in reducing not only the procedure time but also the AF recurrence than the conventional CPVI, possibly due to reduced residual conduction gaps during CPVI procedure.

When an M-PM with latency was recorded in LVPM VAs, RFCA at that site was highly successful. Attention should be paid to latency as well as the score during pace mapping of LVPM VAs.

No abstract