A decade of complex fractionated electrograms catheter-based ablation for atrial fibrillation: Literature analysis, meta-analysis and systematic review
Jia Chen , Yubi Lin , Lifang Chen , Jian Yu , Zuoyi Du , Shushu Li , Zhenzhen Yang , Chuqian Zeng , Xiaoshu Lai , Qiji Lu , Bixia Tian , Jingwen Zhou , Jing Xu , Aidong Zhang , Zicheng Li
{"title":"A decade of complex fractionated electrograms catheter-based ablation for atrial fibrillation: Literature analysis, meta-analysis and systematic review","authors":"Jia Chen , Yubi Lin , Lifang Chen , Jian Yu , Zuoyi Du , Shushu Li , Zhenzhen Yang , Chuqian Zeng , Xiaoshu Lai , Qiji Lu , Bixia Tian , Jingwen Zhou , Jing Xu , Aidong Zhang , Zicheng Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchv.2014.06.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>It has been a decade since the complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) were first established following the publication of Nademanee's standards. However, the status and focus of CFAE research are unclear, as is the efficacy of additional CFAE ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF). This literature review and meta-analysis were designed to determine the status of CFAE research and the efficacy and complications of CFAE ablation alone, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone and PVI plus CFAE ablation in AF.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>With the assistance from reference librarians and investigators trained in systematic review, we conducted a literature search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Wiley Blackwell and Web of Knowledge, using “complex fractionated atrial electrograms” for MeSH and keyword search.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The literature on CFAEs increased from 2007, mainly focusing on mapping studies, with mechanism studies increasing significantly from 2012. Fifteen trials with 1525 patients were qualified for our meta-analysis. Success rates were as follows. Overall (<em>P</em> < 0.001): CFAE ablation alone, 23.5–26.2%; PVI, 64.7%; PVI plus CFAE ablation, 67.0%. Single ablation: PVI, 60.4%; PVI plus CFAEs, 68.8% (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07–2.20, <em>P</em> = 0.02). Re-ablation: PVI, 69.0%; PVI plus CFAEs, 77.2% (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06–2.24, <em>P</em> = 0.02). Paroxysmal AF: PVI, 76.7%; PVI plus CFAEs, 79.1% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79–1.81, <em>P</em> = 0.39). Persistent or permanent AF: PVI, 47.9%; PVI plus CFAEs, 58.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.13–2.24, <em>P</em> = 0.008). Complication rates: PVI, 2.6%; PVI plus CFAEs, 3.4% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.58–2.57, <em>P</em> = 0.61).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In the literature, CFAE mapping studies preceded mechanism studies. CFAE ablation alone is insufficient for the treatment of AF. Additional CFAE ablation after adequate PVI or PVI plus linear ablation improves the outcome of single ablation and re-ablation without increasing complications, especially in persistent or permanent AF. There are insufficient data to support a similar improvement in paroxysmal AF or inducible AF after PVI for paroxysmal AF.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90542,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels","volume":"4 ","pages":"Pages 63-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchv.2014.06.013","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214763214000522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Abstract
Background
It has been a decade since the complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) were first established following the publication of Nademanee's standards. However, the status and focus of CFAE research are unclear, as is the efficacy of additional CFAE ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF). This literature review and meta-analysis were designed to determine the status of CFAE research and the efficacy and complications of CFAE ablation alone, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone and PVI plus CFAE ablation in AF.
Methods
With the assistance from reference librarians and investigators trained in systematic review, we conducted a literature search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Wiley Blackwell and Web of Knowledge, using “complex fractionated atrial electrograms” for MeSH and keyword search.
Results
The literature on CFAEs increased from 2007, mainly focusing on mapping studies, with mechanism studies increasing significantly from 2012. Fifteen trials with 1525 patients were qualified for our meta-analysis. Success rates were as follows. Overall (P < 0.001): CFAE ablation alone, 23.5–26.2%; PVI, 64.7%; PVI plus CFAE ablation, 67.0%. Single ablation: PVI, 60.4%; PVI plus CFAEs, 68.8% (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07–2.20, P = 0.02). Re-ablation: PVI, 69.0%; PVI plus CFAEs, 77.2% (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06–2.24, P = 0.02). Paroxysmal AF: PVI, 76.7%; PVI plus CFAEs, 79.1% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79–1.81, P = 0.39). Persistent or permanent AF: PVI, 47.9%; PVI plus CFAEs, 58.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.13–2.24, P = 0.008). Complication rates: PVI, 2.6%; PVI plus CFAEs, 3.4% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.58–2.57, P = 0.61).
Conclusions
In the literature, CFAE mapping studies preceded mechanism studies. CFAE ablation alone is insufficient for the treatment of AF. Additional CFAE ablation after adequate PVI or PVI plus linear ablation improves the outcome of single ablation and re-ablation without increasing complications, especially in persistent or permanent AF. There are insufficient data to support a similar improvement in paroxysmal AF or inducible AF after PVI for paroxysmal AF.