Aggressive ablation vs. regular ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre real-world cohort study.

• Tác giả: Bing Han, Xumin Hou, Anjing Ji, Weifeng Jiang, Kaige Li, Xu Liu, Mu Qin, Yangbin Shi, Xinhua Wang, Yanzhe Wang, Shaohui Wu, Kai Xu, Ping Ye, Menghe Zhang, Yu Zhang, Qidong Zheng
• Ngôn ngữ: eng
• Ký hiệu phân loại: 616.85880231 Diseases of nervous system and mental disorders
• Thông tin xuất bản: England : Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology , 2025
• Bộ sưu tập: NCBI
• ID: 722879

Tóm tắt

 AIMS: Current guidelines for the optimal ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) remain unclear. While our previous RCT confirmed the favourable prognosis of aggressive ablation, real-world evidence is still lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 4833 PerAF patients undergoing catheter ablation at 10 centres, two groups were defined: regular ablation (PVI-only or PVI plus anatomical ablation) and aggressive ablation (anatomical plus electrogram-guided ablation), with 1560 patients each after propensity score (PS) matching. The primary endpoint was 12-month AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence-free survival off anti-arrhythmic drugs after a single procedure. Additional PS matching was performed within the regular group between PVI-only and anatomical ablation (n = 455 each). Furthermore, anatomical ablation from the regular group was independently matched with aggressive ablation (n = 1362 each). At 12 months, the aggressive group showed superior AF/AT-free survival (66.2% vs. 59.3%, P <
  0.001
  HR 0.745), similar AT recurrence (12.0% vs. 11.3%, P = 0.539), and significantly higher procedural AF termination (67.0% vs. 21.0%, P <
  0.001) than regular group. Moreover, patients with AF termination had improved AF/AT-free survival (72.3% vs. 55.2%, P <
  0.001). Safety endpoints did not differ significantly between the two groups. Both the ablation outcomes and AF termination rate showed increasing trends with the extent of ablation aggressiveness but declined with extremely aggressive ablation. After additional PS matching, within the regular group, no statistical differences were observed though AF/AT-free survival in the anatomical group was slightly higher than the PVI-only group (60.7% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.122)
  while aggressive ablation showed improved AF/AT-free survival compared to anatomical ablation alone from regular group (67.5% vs. 59.9%, P <
  0.001). CONCLUSION: Aggressive ablation achieved more favourable outcomes than regular ablation, and moderately aggressive ablation may be associated with better clinical outcomes. AF termination is a reliable ablation endpoint.