60岁以上首次导管消融房颤患者射频与脉冲场消融的远期疗效比较

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Pamela Horton Embrey, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Prem Geeta Torlapati, Vincenzo Mirco La Fazia, Carola Gianni, Yaseen Eleyan, Bryan MacDonald, Angel Mayedo, Amin Al-Ahmad, John David Burkhardt, John Allison, Weeranun Bode, G J Gallinghouse, Rodney Horton, Andrea Natale
{"title":"60岁以上首次导管消融房颤患者射频与脉冲场消融的远期疗效比较","authors":"Pamela Horton Embrey, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Prem Geeta Torlapati, Vincenzo Mirco La Fazia, Carola Gianni, Yaseen Eleyan, Bryan MacDonald, Angel Mayedo, Amin Al-Ahmad, John David Burkhardt, John Allison, Weeranun Bode, G J Gallinghouse, Rodney Horton, Andrea Natale","doi":"10.1111/jce.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We evaluated the impact of pulsed-field (PFA) vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on long-term ablation outcome in AF patients and whether the benefit was extended to all age groups, in a real-world population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive AF patients undergoing their first ablation procedure were classified based on their age at baseline; group 1: > 60 years and group 2: ≤ 60 years. Each group were then subclassified based on the energy modality used; group 1A or 2A: received RFA, and group 1B or 2B: underwent PFA. All patients received isolation of PVs and left atrial posterior wall.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1386 patients were included in group 1 (Gr 1A: 954; Gr 1B: 432) and 414 subjects in group 2 (Gr 2A: 284; Gr 2B: 130). Patients in group 1 were sicker with more comorbidities. At the end of 1-year follow-up, significantly higher recurrence rate was reported in group 1 patients receiving RFA compared to PFA (249 (26.1%) vs. 45 (10.4%), p < 0.001), whereas the recurrence rate was comparable between the two subgroups in group 2 (RFA: 69 (24.3%) vs. PFA: 22 (17%), p = 0.095). Mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in the Gr. 2B (PFA) population compared to RFA (7.21 ± 1.87 vs. 7.75 ± 2.03 months, p = 0.008) and comparable in Gr. 1 (RFA: 7.98 ± 1.29 vs. PFA: 8.12 ± 1.80 months, p = 0.531). After controlling for the variables in the multivariate model, PFA was associated with lower risk (OR = 0.378, 95% CI 0.265, 0.539; p-value < 0.001) and Persistent AF with higher risk of recurrence (OR = 1.745, 95% CI 1.562, 1.986; p-value = 0.040).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate in patients > 60 years of age with more comorbidities compared to RFA. However, in patients aged ≤ 60 years, no difference in RFA vs. PFA in terms of recurrence rate was observed. Mean time to recurrence was comparable between PFA and RFA subgroups in the group 1 population, whereas it was significantly higher in group 2 PFA vs. RFA subgroup.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Outcome of Radiofrequency Versus Pulsed-Field Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Aged More Than 60 Years Undergoing Their First Catheter Ablation.\",\"authors\":\"Pamela Horton Embrey, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Prem Geeta Torlapati, Vincenzo Mirco La Fazia, Carola Gianni, Yaseen Eleyan, Bryan MacDonald, Angel Mayedo, Amin Al-Ahmad, John David Burkhardt, John Allison, Weeranun Bode, G J Gallinghouse, Rodney Horton, Andrea Natale\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.70101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We evaluated the impact of pulsed-field (PFA) vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on long-term ablation outcome in AF patients and whether the benefit was extended to all age groups, in a real-world population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive AF patients undergoing their first ablation procedure were classified based on their age at baseline; group 1: > 60 years and group 2: ≤ 60 years. Each group were then subclassified based on the energy modality used; group 1A or 2A: received RFA, and group 1B or 2B: underwent PFA. All patients received isolation of PVs and left atrial posterior wall.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1386 patients were included in group 1 (Gr 1A: 954; Gr 1B: 432) and 414 subjects in group 2 (Gr 2A: 284; Gr 2B: 130). Patients in group 1 were sicker with more comorbidities. At the end of 1-year follow-up, significantly higher recurrence rate was reported in group 1 patients receiving RFA compared to PFA (249 (26.1%) vs. 45 (10.4%), p < 0.001), whereas the recurrence rate was comparable between the two subgroups in group 2 (RFA: 69 (24.3%) vs. PFA: 22 (17%), p = 0.095). Mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in the Gr. 2B (PFA) population compared to RFA (7.21 ± 1.87 vs. 7.75 ± 2.03 months, p = 0.008) and comparable in Gr. 1 (RFA: 7.98 ± 1.29 vs. PFA: 8.12 ± 1.80 months, p = 0.531). After controlling for the variables in the multivariate model, PFA was associated with lower risk (OR = 0.378, 95% CI 0.265, 0.539; p-value < 0.001) and Persistent AF with higher risk of recurrence (OR = 1.745, 95% CI 1.562, 1.986; p-value = 0.040).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate in patients > 60 years of age with more comorbidities compared to RFA. However, in patients aged ≤ 60 years, no difference in RFA vs. PFA in terms of recurrence rate was observed. Mean time to recurrence was comparable between PFA and RFA subgroups in the group 1 population, whereas it was significantly higher in group 2 PFA vs. RFA subgroup.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70101\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们评估了脉冲场(PFA)与射频消融(RFA)对房颤患者长期消融结果的影响,以及在现实世界的人群中,这种益处是否扩展到所有年龄组。方法:连续接受第一次消融手术的房颤患者根据基线年龄进行分类;第一组:> 60年,第二组:≤60年。然后根据所使用的能量模式对每组进行细分;1A或2A组:行RFA, 1B或2B组:行PFA。所有患者均行左房室和左房后壁隔离术。结果:1组共纳入1386例患者(1A组:954例;1B组:432例),2组共纳入414例患者(2A组:284例;2B组:130例)。第一组患者病情较重,合并症较多。在1年随访结束时,与PFA相比,接受RFA的1组患者的复发率明显更高(249例(26.1%)vs. 45例(10.4%))。结论:与RFA相比,PFA与60岁至60岁的合并症较多的患者的复发率显著降低相关。然而,在≤60岁的患者中,RFA与PFA在复发率方面没有观察到差异。在1组人群中,PFA和RFA亚组之间的平均复发时间具有可比性,而在2组PFA和RFA亚组中,PFA和RFA亚组的平均复发时间明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-Term Outcome of Radiofrequency Versus Pulsed-Field Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Aged More Than 60 Years Undergoing Their First Catheter Ablation.

Background: We evaluated the impact of pulsed-field (PFA) vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on long-term ablation outcome in AF patients and whether the benefit was extended to all age groups, in a real-world population.

Methods: Consecutive AF patients undergoing their first ablation procedure were classified based on their age at baseline; group 1: > 60 years and group 2: ≤ 60 years. Each group were then subclassified based on the energy modality used; group 1A or 2A: received RFA, and group 1B or 2B: underwent PFA. All patients received isolation of PVs and left atrial posterior wall.

Results: A total of 1386 patients were included in group 1 (Gr 1A: 954; Gr 1B: 432) and 414 subjects in group 2 (Gr 2A: 284; Gr 2B: 130). Patients in group 1 were sicker with more comorbidities. At the end of 1-year follow-up, significantly higher recurrence rate was reported in group 1 patients receiving RFA compared to PFA (249 (26.1%) vs. 45 (10.4%), p < 0.001), whereas the recurrence rate was comparable between the two subgroups in group 2 (RFA: 69 (24.3%) vs. PFA: 22 (17%), p = 0.095). Mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in the Gr. 2B (PFA) population compared to RFA (7.21 ± 1.87 vs. 7.75 ± 2.03 months, p = 0.008) and comparable in Gr. 1 (RFA: 7.98 ± 1.29 vs. PFA: 8.12 ± 1.80 months, p = 0.531). After controlling for the variables in the multivariate model, PFA was associated with lower risk (OR = 0.378, 95% CI 0.265, 0.539; p-value < 0.001) and Persistent AF with higher risk of recurrence (OR = 1.745, 95% CI 1.562, 1.986; p-value = 0.040).

Conclusion: PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate in patients > 60 years of age with more comorbidities compared to RFA. However, in patients aged ≤ 60 years, no difference in RFA vs. PFA in terms of recurrence rate was observed. Mean time to recurrence was comparable between PFA and RFA subgroups in the group 1 population, whereas it was significantly higher in group 2 PFA vs. RFA subgroup.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信