Long‐term efficacy and safety of adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall during catheter ablation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation

Chih‐Min Liu(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Li‐Wei Lo(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Yenn‐Jiang Lin(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Chin‐Yu Lin(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Shih‐Lin Chang(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Fa‐Po Chung(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Tze‐Fan Chao(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Yu‐Feng Hu(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Ta‐Chuan Tuan(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Jo‐Nan Liao(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Yun‐Yu Chen(National Taiwan University), Ling Kuo(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Ting‐Yung Chang(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Quang Minh Hoang(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Simon Salim(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Jennifer Jeanne B. Vicera(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Cheng‐I Wu(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University), Chieh‐Mao Chuang(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Ting‐Chun Huang(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Shih‐Ann Chen(National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University)
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
May 30, 2019
Cited by 45

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to clarify the effect of vein of Marshall (VOM) ethanol infusion for treating VOM triggers and/or mitral flutter after first-attempt endocardial ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 254 consecutive patients (age, 56 ± 10 years; 221 male) undergoing catheter ablation for drug-refractory nonparoxysmal AF, 32 (12.6%) received VOM ethanol infusion. The patients were stratified into group 1 (pulmonary vein isolation [PVI], substrate modification, VOM ethanol infusion), group 2 (PVI, substrate modification), and group 3 (PVI alone). Propensity-matched analysis (N = 128) of long-term outcomes (3.9 ± 0.5 years) revealed a higher AF recurrence risk in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.63-10.69; P = .003) and group 3 (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.09-3.04; P = .021) than in group 1, as well as a higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence risk in group 2 than in group 1 (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.16-5.03; P = .018). A higher procedural termination rate was observed in group 1 than groups 2 and 3 (41.7% vs 17.2% vs 18.8%; P = .042). On multivariate analysis, VOM ethanol injection was an independent predictor of freedom from recurrence of AF (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.08-0.52; P = .001) and atrial arrhythmia (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.74; P = .005), whereas a left atrial diameter >45 mm and hypertension were independent risk factors for recurrence. Periprocedural complications rates were comparable among the groups. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive VOM ethanol infusion is effective and safe for treating nonparoxysmal AF in patients with VOM triggers and/or refractory mitral flutter, providing good long-term freedom from AF and atrial arrhythmia.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis