Another way to prove the presence and participation of an accessory pathway in supraventricular tachycardia?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to George D Veenhuyzen.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained dysrhythmia in adults. It is ironic, then, that although mechanisms and effective treatments for most other supraventricular tachyarrhythmias have been discovered, AF remains incompletely understood and poorly treated. Nonetheless, our understanding of the pathophysiology of AF has improved in the last half-century, including some groundbreaking observations made in the last 10 years. Indeed, for some patients, the potential for cure now appears to be available. Because no unifying mechanism of AF has been proven, the aim of this review is to describe some of the common and important concepts behind current mechanistic theories of AF and how they contribute to our clinical understanding of AF.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) may recur after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) as the result of either recurrent PV conduction or non-PV foci. This study characterized the electrophysiological findings of patients with recurrent AF after initially successful PVI and the clinical outcome after a repeat procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 185 patients undergoing PVI, 52 reported no significant improvement in their clinical course. We analyzed PV conduction in 51 PVs (15 patients) at repeat PVI. All PVs were isolated with either RF (30 W, 50 degrees C, 60 seconds) or cryoablation (-80 degrees C for 5 minutes). At repeat study, 42 of the previously isolated 51 PVs had return of conduction. All patients had recurrent conduction in > or =2 PVs, with only 1 non-PV focus identified. The mean number of RF applications required to re-isolate the PVs was fewer at the repeat compared with the initial procedure (10+/-6 versus 4+/-2, P<0.005). Over a period of 15+/-6 months, all but 1 patient was clinically improved by the second procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent AF after PVI, return of PV conduction can be expected. Repeat PVI provides significant clinical benefit for these patients. These results suggest that if permanent PV isolation is the ablation strategy, different techniques may be required to improve long-term efficacy.