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: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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: Mitral annular flutter (MAF) is the most common left atrial macro-reentrant arrhythmia following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). The best ablation approach for this arrhythmia remains unclear.
Methods: This single-center, retrospective study sought to compare the acute and long-term outcomes of patients with MAF treated with an anterior mitral line (AML) versus a mitral isthmus line (MIL). Acute ablation success, complication rates, and long-term arrhythmia recurrence were compared between the two groups.
Results: Between 2015 and 2021, a total of 81 patients underwent ablation of MAF (58 with an AML and 23 with a MIL). Acute procedural success defined as bidirectional block was achieved in 88% of the AML and 91% of the MIL patients respectively (p = 1.0). One year freedom from atrial arrhythmias was 49.5% versus 77.5% and at 4 years was 24% versus 59.6% for AML versus MIL, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.38, confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.82, p = .009). Fewer patients in the MIL group had recurrent atrial flutter when compared to the AML group (HR: 0.32, CI: 0.12-0.83, p = .009). The incidence of recurrent AF, on the other side, was not different between both groups (21.7% vs. 18.9%; p = .76). There were no serious adverse events in either group.
Conclusion: In this retrospective study of patients with MAF, a MIL compared to AML was associated with a long-term reduction in recurrent atrial arrhythmias driven by a reduction in macroreentrant atrial flutters.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.16325 | DOI Listing |