Low voltage area guided substrate modification in nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background Low voltage areas (LVAs) on left atrial (LA) bipolar voltage mapping correlate with areas of fibrosis. LVAs guided substrate modification was hypothesized to improve the success rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation particularly in nonparoxysmal AF population. However, randomized cont...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2023-02, Vol.34 (2), p.455-464
Hauptverfasser: Moustafa, Abdelmoniem, Karim, Saima, Kahaly, Omar, Elzanaty, Ahmed, Meenakshisundaram, Chandramohan, Abi‐Saleh, Bernard, Eltahawy, Ehab, Chacko, Paul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Low voltage areas (LVAs) on left atrial (LA) bipolar voltage mapping correlate with areas of fibrosis. LVAs guided substrate modification was hypothesized to improve the success rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation particularly in nonparoxysmal AF population. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies yielded mixed results. Methods The databases of Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception to August 2022. Relevant studies comparing LVA guided substrate modification (LVA ablation) versus conventional AF ablation (non LVA ablation) in patients with nonparoxysmal AF were identified and a meta‐analysis was performed (Graphical image). The efficacy endpoints of interest were recurrence of AF and the need for repeat ablation at 1‐year. The safety endpoint of interest was adverse events for both groups. Procedure related endpoints included total procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Results A total of 11 studies with 1597 patients were included. A significant reduction in AF recurrence at 1‐year was observed in LVA ablation versus non LVA ablation group (risk ratio [RR] 0.63 (27% vs. 36%),95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.62, p 
ISSN:1045-3873
1540-8167
DOI:10.1111/jce.15764