Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Bot: Adding CME Category::Cardiology) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| | __NOTOC__ | ||
{| class="infobox" style="float:right;" | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | [[File:Siren.gif|30px|link=Atrial fibrillation resident survival guide]]|| <br> || <br> | ||
| < | | [[Atrial fibrillation resident survival guide|'''Resident'''<br>'''Survival'''<br>'''Guide''']] | ||
|} | |} | ||
{ | {| class="infobox" style="float:right;" | ||
|- | |||
| [[File:Critical_Pathways.gif|88px|link=Atrial fibrillation critical pathways]]|| <br> || <br> | |||
|} | |||
{| class="infobox" style="float:right;" | |||
|- | |||
| <small>Sinus rhythm</small> [[Image:Heart conduct sinus.gif|none|75px]] | |||
| <small>Atrial fibrillation</small> [[Image:Heart conduct atrialfib.gif|none|100px]] | |||
|} | |||
{{Atrial fibrillation}} | |||
{{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{CZ}} | |||
{{ | |||
{{ | |||
{{ | |||
==Supportive Trial Data== | |||
Results from the Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation (PVAI) versus AV node ablation with Bi-Ventricular Pacing for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure (PABA-CHF) study suggest that pulmonary vein (PV) isolation leads to better morphologic and functional results than atrioventricular (AV) node ablation with biventricular pacing for [[congestive heart failure]] (CHF) in patients with atrial fibrillation. | |||
In this prospective, multicenter study, 41 patients were randomized to PV isolation and 40 to AV node ablation with biventricular pacing. At 6 months, patients in the PV isolation group had higher mean ejection fractions (35% vs 29%, p<0.001), greater 6 minute distances walked (340 vs 297 meters, p <0.001), and better quality of life scores as determined by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (60 vs 82, p<0.001, where lower scores indicate better quality of life) than those in the AV node ablation arm. | |||
These PABA-CHF study findings thus suggest the potential advantages of performing PV isolation over [[AV node]] ablation with [[Cardiac resynchronization therapy|biventricular pacing]] for this patient population. | |||
Noted limitations of the study include using sites with extensive experience in performing ablations, an unblinded study design, and a relatively short follow-up time. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
{{WikiDoc Help Menu}} | |||
{{ | {{WikiDoc Sources}} | ||
[[CME Category::Cardiology]] | |||
{{ | |||
[[Category:Electrophysiology]] | [[Category:Electrophysiology]] | ||
[[Category:Cardiology]] | [[Category:Cardiology]] | ||
[[Category:Emergency medicine]] | [[Category:Emergency medicine]] | ||
[[Category:Needs overview]] | |||
[[ | |||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 15 March 2016
 |
Resident Survival Guide |
| File:Critical Pathways.gif |
Sinus rhythm  |
Atrial fibrillation  |
|
Atrial Fibrillation Microchapters | |
|
Special Groups | |
|---|---|
|
Diagnosis | |
|
Treatment | |
|
Cardioversion | |
|
Anticoagulation | |
|
Surgery | |
|
Case Studies | |
|
Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data On the Web | |
|
Directions to Hospitals Treating Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data | |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data | |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]
Supportive Trial Data
Results from the Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation (PVAI) versus AV node ablation with Bi-Ventricular Pacing for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure (PABA-CHF) study suggest that pulmonary vein (PV) isolation leads to better morphologic and functional results than atrioventricular (AV) node ablation with biventricular pacing for congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
In this prospective, multicenter study, 41 patients were randomized to PV isolation and 40 to AV node ablation with biventricular pacing. At 6 months, patients in the PV isolation group had higher mean ejection fractions (35% vs 29%, p<0.001), greater 6 minute distances walked (340 vs 297 meters, p <0.001), and better quality of life scores as determined by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (60 vs 82, p<0.001, where lower scores indicate better quality of life) than those in the AV node ablation arm.
These PABA-CHF study findings thus suggest the potential advantages of performing PV isolation over AV node ablation with biventricular pacing for this patient population.
Noted limitations of the study include using sites with extensive experience in performing ablations, an unblinded study design, and a relatively short follow-up time.