脉冲场消融与热消融用于房颤肺静脉隔离的 Meta 分析:以疗效、安全性和结果为重点的广泛概述。

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.15420/aer.2024.05
Mohammad Iqbal, William Kamarullah, Raymond Pranata, Iwan Cahyo Santosa Putra, Giky Karwiky, Chaerul Achmad, Young Hoon Kim
{"title":"脉冲场消融与热消融用于房颤肺静脉隔离的 Meta 分析:以疗效、安全性和结果为重点的广泛概述。","authors":"Mohammad Iqbal, William Kamarullah, Raymond Pranata, Iwan Cahyo Santosa Putra, Giky Karwiky, Chaerul Achmad, Young Hoon Kim","doi":"10.15420/aer.2024.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recently established non-thermal, single-shot pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a potential tool for achieving rapid pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to cause cell death by electroporation, yet data regarding this state-of-the-art technology remain sparse. In this meta-analysis, we included 3,857 patients from 20 studies. There was no significant difference in AF recurrence between the PFA and control groups. Subgroup analysis showed that additional ablation beyond PVI has a similar rate of AF recurrence to PVI alone (10% versus 13%, respectively). PVI durability was achieved in 83% (mean), 95% CI [65-99%] of the PFA group and in 79% (mean), 95% CI [60-98%] of the control group, with no significant difference in the rate of PVI durability between the two groups. The PFA group had considerably reduced procedure duration, but not fluoroscopy time. No statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications were observed. PFA is associated with shorter procedural time than thermal ablation. Cardiac complications were uncommon and mainly reversible in both the PFA and control groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":8412,"journal":{"name":"Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review","volume":"13 ","pages":"e13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363063/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in AF: A Broad Overview Focusing on Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Iqbal, William Kamarullah, Raymond Pranata, Iwan Cahyo Santosa Putra, Giky Karwiky, Chaerul Achmad, Young Hoon Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.15420/aer.2024.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The recently established non-thermal, single-shot pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a potential tool for achieving rapid pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to cause cell death by electroporation, yet data regarding this state-of-the-art technology remain sparse. In this meta-analysis, we included 3,857 patients from 20 studies. There was no significant difference in AF recurrence between the PFA and control groups. Subgroup analysis showed that additional ablation beyond PVI has a similar rate of AF recurrence to PVI alone (10% versus 13%, respectively). PVI durability was achieved in 83% (mean), 95% CI [65-99%] of the PFA group and in 79% (mean), 95% CI [60-98%] of the control group, with no significant difference in the rate of PVI durability between the two groups. The PFA group had considerably reduced procedure duration, but not fluoroscopy time. No statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications were observed. PFA is associated with shorter procedural time than thermal ablation. Cardiac complications were uncommon and mainly reversible in both the PFA and control groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363063/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15420/aer.2024.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15420/aer.2024.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近确立的非热单次脉冲场消融术(PFA)是实现快速肺静脉隔离(PVI)的潜在工具,可通过电穿孔导致细胞死亡,但有关这项最先进技术的数据仍然稀少。在这项荟萃分析中,我们纳入了来自 20 项研究的 3857 名患者。PFA 组和对照组在房颤复发率方面没有明显差异。亚组分析显示,PVI 以外的额外消融与单纯 PVI 的房颤复发率相似(分别为 10% 和 13%)。在 PFA 组中,PVI 持久率为 83%(平均值),95% CI [65-99%];在对照组中,PVI 持久率为 79%(平均值),95% CI [60-98%],两组的 PVI 持久率无显著差异。PFA 组大大缩短了手术时间,但没有缩短透视时间。在围手术期并发症方面,没有观察到明显的统计学差异。与热消融相比,PFA 的手术时间更短。心脏并发症在 PFA 组和对照组都不常见,而且主要是可逆的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-analysis of Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in AF: A Broad Overview Focusing on Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes.

The recently established non-thermal, single-shot pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a potential tool for achieving rapid pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to cause cell death by electroporation, yet data regarding this state-of-the-art technology remain sparse. In this meta-analysis, we included 3,857 patients from 20 studies. There was no significant difference in AF recurrence between the PFA and control groups. Subgroup analysis showed that additional ablation beyond PVI has a similar rate of AF recurrence to PVI alone (10% versus 13%, respectively). PVI durability was achieved in 83% (mean), 95% CI [65-99%] of the PFA group and in 79% (mean), 95% CI [60-98%] of the control group, with no significant difference in the rate of PVI durability between the two groups. The PFA group had considerably reduced procedure duration, but not fluoroscopy time. No statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications were observed. PFA is associated with shorter procedural time than thermal ablation. Cardiac complications were uncommon and mainly reversible in both the PFA and control groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
22
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信