Comparative analysis of long-term outcomes of thoracoscopic and ablation index-guided catheter ablation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
Le résumé fourni par la source
Aim. To conduct a comparative assessment of the long-term results of thoracoscopic and catheter ablation using the ablation index in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods. A comparative analysis of the long-term results of catheter ablation using the ablation index - group № 1 (36 patients) and thoracoscopic ablation with the left atrial appendage exclusion - group № 2 (42 patients) was performed. Results. The effectiveness of catheter ablation was 57.14%, thoracoscopic ablation - 67.5% at 12-month followup (р=0,128). There were also no statistically significant differences in safety (p=0.55). Analyzing the structure of postprocedural atrial tachycardias in group №1 was demonstrated that AF recurrence was in 93.3%, in group №2 - in 50%. Atypical atrial flutter was documented in 6.6% of cases in group №1 and in 31.5% - in group №2. Typical atrial flutter was documented only in group №2 (18.75% (3)). However, AF recurrence was more common in the catheter ablation group after 6 months of follow-up (p=0.04). Conclusion. Catheter and thoracoscopic ablation are comparable in terms of overall efficacy and safety, however, thoracoscopic ablation provides greater freedom from AF in a 6 month.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparative analysis of long-term outcomes of thoracoscopic and ablation index-guided catheter ablation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
- Date Crossref
- 23/06/2023
- Éditeur
- Institute of Cardio Technics - INCART
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.