Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage (LAA) may provide incremental benefits for arrhythmia management in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of endocardial ablation and LAA exclusion with LARIAT device for electrical and mechanical exclusion of LAA.
Methods: We compared patients who underwent endocardial LAA isolation during index RFA for persistent AF and underwent a repeat RFA to patients who underwent LAA exclusion with LARIAT device followed by RFA for AF in this multicenter registry. Efficacy of electrical and mechanical isolation of LAA was assessed.
Results: We included 182 patients of which 91 patients underwent endocardial LAA isolation during RFA for AF, and 91 patients underwent LAA exclusion with LARIAT device followed by RFA for AF. Baseline characteristics were similar except for higher CHADSVASc score, coronary artery disease, and prior stroke rate in LARIAT arm. Persistence of electrical isolation (measured at beginning of second procedure) after LARIAT procedure was higher than one-time AF-RFA (96.7% vs 52.8%, p < 0.01). Acute pulmonary vein isolation rates were similar in both arms. AF recurrence rate after second isolation attempts at 1 year was similar in both arms. No difference in major complications was noted between both arms.
Conclusions: LAA exclusion with LARIAT device appears to be more efficacious as compared to one-time endocardial ablation, but not compared to repeat isolation, in achieving complete electrical isolation of LAA for persistent AF.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-019-00657-1 | DOI Listing |