A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A RAndomized Trial to compare the acute reconnection after pulmonary vein ISolation with Laser-BalloON versus radiofrequency Ablation: RATISBONA trial. | LitMetric

Introduction: Dormant conduction and acute reconnection in the pulmonary veins (PV) during a PV isolation can be detected by performing an adenosine provocation test (APT). Visually guided laser balloon ablation (VGLB) creates deep transmural lesions, thus causing less acute reconnection. This study compared the acute PV reconnection rate after isolation with VGLB or with RF using an APT.

Methods And Results: Patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to PVI with the VGLB or RF ablation. Each PV underwent an APT at least 20 minutes after successful isolation with injection of 18 mg adenosine. Primary endpoint was the difference between the two ablation methods regarding acute PV reconnection rate detected with APT. A total of 50 patients were randomized into the study (25 VGLB). The basic characteristics and mean procedure time were not different between the two groups. Note that 96% of the 97 targeted PVs in the VGLB group and 98% of the 96 targeted PVs in the RF group could be isolated (P  =  0.41). APT was performed at similar times (after 28 minutes in VGLB-arm vs. after 31.5 minutes in RF-arm; P  =  0.12). Significantly less PVs were reconnected during APT in the VGLB group than in the RF group (10 PV [10.8%] vs. 29 PV [30.9%]; P  =  0.001).

Conclusion: The acute PV reconnection rate is significantly less after PVI with VGBL than with RF. The clinical significance of this apparently better procedural efficiency of the VGBL ablation should be assessed with new randomized studies looking at AF recurrence.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.13465DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

acute reconnection
24
reconnection rate
12
reconnection pulmonary
8
targeted pvs
8
vglb group
8
acute
6
reconnection
6
vglb
6
ablation
5
apt
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!