Efficacy of two-stage approach for interventional treatment of coexistent atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter for sinus rhythm maintenance in long-term: a prospective controlled clinical trial

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexistent typical atrial flutter (AFL) interventional treatment strategy remains unresolved in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. Results of this approach remain suboptimal. There are several approaches to the interventional treatment of patients with coexistent AF and AFL: simultaneous pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), PVI or CTI RFCA only and two-stage approach. To our knowledge, cumulative efficacy of two-stage approach has not been previously reported. The aim. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two-stage approach for interventional treatment of coexistent AF and AFL for sinus rhythm maintenance in long-term. Methods: Patients (pts) (n=34) with AF and AFL aged 41-82 years (11 women) were divided into two groups (1:1): «One-stage Approach» (group 1; n=17): PVI+СTI RFСA and «Two-stage approach» (group 2; n=17): first stage - CTI RFCA (group 2.1); second stage - PVI in case of AF recurrence after RFCA (group 2.2). Primary endpoint (PEP) was defined as any recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia at the end of follow-up; group 2 events have been considered after PVI. Secondary endpoint (SEP) - recurrent any atrial tachyarrhythmia in groups 1 and 2 after CTI RFCA in group 2. PEP and SEP were evaluated at the end of the «blind period» (3 months after procedure). Results: Registered recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia in pts who reached PEP or SEP was AF. AFL has not been detected in any cases. PEP was noted in 8 (47.06%) pts in group 1 and 1 (5.88%) pts in group 2. Further, SEP was observed in 3 pts (17.65%) in group 1 and in 4 (23.53%) pts in group 2 (p=0.671). The probability of long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm was significantly higher in «Two-stage approach» than in «One-stage approach» (94.12% and 52.94%, respectively, p=0.001). Significant differences in procedure length and fluoroscopy time have been found. Those were longer in group 1 compared to group 2.1 (p function show_eabstract() { $('#eabstract1').hide(); $('#eabstract2').show(); $('#eabstract_expand').hide(); }