MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes
Journal Article

Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes

2015
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Purpose We prospectively investigated the differences in pulmonary vein reconnections (PVRs) and clinical outcomes between contact force (CF)-guided and conventional circumferential PV isolation (CPVI) of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods One hundred twenty consecutive AF patients (63 ± 10 years; 88 males) undergoing an initial CPVI were randomized to ablation with a target CF of 20 g (CF group; n  = 60) or that with operators blinded to the CF information (blind group; n  = 60). Results The CF group had fewer PVRs (0.67 ± 0.91/patient vs. 1.16 ± 1.16/patient; P  = 0.007), a lower incidence of persistent PVRs (13.2 vs. 41.2 %; P  < 0.001), and a shorter procedural time for the CPVI (50 vs. 56 min; P  = 0.019) than the blind group. The mean CF was higher in the CF group than the blind group (18.0 vs. 16.1 g; P  < 0.001), with the most significant difference observed along the posterior right-sided PVs (P-RPVs) and anterior left-sided PVs (A-LPVs). In logistic regression models, the mean CF was a negative predictor of PVRs along the P-RPVs and A-LPVs in the blind group (odds ratios, 0.728 and 0.786; P  < 0.001 and 0.007), while no significant predictor was identified in the CF group or elsewhere in the blind group. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the arrhythmia-free survival rate at 12 months was 89.9 % in the CF group and 88.2 % in the blind group, respectively ( P  = 0.624). Conclusions CF-guided CPVI can reduce PVRs and the procedural time and be particularly beneficial along regions where a relatively low CF tends to be applied: the P-RPVs and A-LPVs. The comparable clinical outcomes may be due to the learning curve effect obtained by the CF-guided technique and repeated provocation of dormant PV conduction.