Strategies for repeat ablation for atrial fibrillation: A multicentre comparison of nonpulmonary vein versus pulmonary vein target ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 18% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergo a repeat ablation within 12 months after their index ablation. Despite the high prevalence, comparative studies on nonpulmonary vein (PV) target strategies in repeat AF ablation are scarce. Here, we describe 12 months efficacy of non-PV and PV target ablations as a repeat ablation strategy. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective, descriptive study was conducted with data of 280 patients who underwent repeat AF ablation. The ablation strategy for repeat ablation was at the operators' discretion. Non-PV target ablation (n = 140) included PV reisolation, posterior wall isolation, mitral line, roofline, and/or complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation. PV target ablation (n = 140), included reisolation and/or wide atrium circumferential ablation. Patients' demographics and rhythm outcomes during 12 months follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: At 12 months, more atrial tachyarrhythmias were observed in the non-PV target group (48.6%) compared to the PV target group (29.3%, p = .001). Similarly, a significantly higher AF and atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence rate was observed after non-PV target ablation compared to PV target ablation (36.4% vs. 22.1% and 22.9% vs. 10.7%). After adjustment, a significantly higher risk of AT recurrence remained in the non-PV target group. Both groups significantly de-escalated antiarrhythmic drug use; de-escalation was more profound after PV target ablation. Patients with isolated PVs during non-PV target ablation had a significantly higher risk for AF recurrence than those with reconnected PVs. CONCLUSION: Compared to PV target ablation, non-PV target repeat ablation did not improve outcomes after 12 months and was independently associated with an increased risk for AT recurrences.

The Association Between Macroscopic Arteriosclerosis of the Renal Artery, Microscopic Arteriosclerosis, Organ Discard, and Kidney Transplant Outcome.

BACKGROUND: During organ retrieval, surgeons estimate the degree of arteriosclerosis and this plays an important role in decisions on organ acceptance. Our study aimed to elucidate the association between macroscopic renal artery arteriosclerosis, donor kidney discard, and transplant outcome. METHODS: We selected all transplanted and discarded kidneys in the Netherlands between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015, from deceased donors aged 50 y and older, for which data on renal artery arteriosclerosis were available (n = 2610). The association between arteriosclerosis and kidney discard, the relation between arteriosclerosis and outcome, and the correlation between macroscopic and microscopic arteriosclerosis were explored. RESULTS: Macroscopic arteriosclerosis was independently associated with kidney discard (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.80; P = 0.03). Arteriosclerosis (any degree) was not significantly associated with delayed graft function (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.16), estimated glomerular filtration rate 1-y posttransplant (B, 0.58; 95% CI, -2.07 to 3.22; P = 0.67), and long-term graft survival (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.33; P = 0.55). There was a significant association between mild arteriosclerosis and primary nonfunction (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.19-3.84; P = 0.01). We found no correlation between macroscopic and histological arteriosclerosis, nor between histological arteriosclerosis and transplant outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Macroscopic arteriosclerosis of the renal artery was independently associated with kidney discard and somewhat associated with primary nonfunction posttransplant. However, there was no effect of arteriosclerosis on delayed graft function, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 y, or long-term graft survival. Our results are valid only after inevitable exclusion of discarded kidneys that had on average more arteriosclerosis. Hence, conclusions should be interpreted in the light of this potential bias.