| Title |
Approaches to Catheter Ablation of Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11936-018-0632-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jackson J. Liang, Daniele Muser, Pasquale Santangeli |
| Abstract |
We describe the technical aspects and outcomes of several different ablation strategies for nonparoxysmal (persistent and long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation (AF) and discuss our ablation strategy for these patients. Catheter ablation is an effective treatment strategy for patients with AF. Outcomes of ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal forms of AF tend to be worse than in patients with paroxysmal AF. Several recent studies have examined the long-term ablation success rates of different ablation approaches in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. While observational studies have suggested benefit of several different ablation strategies for persistent AF, large randomized controlled studies have shown similar success rates with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone as compared versus PVI plus additional ablation. The optimal ablation strategy to achieve long-term freedom from recurrent arrhythmias in patients with nonparoxysmal AF remains controversial. Achieving durable PVI should be the cornerstone of AF ablation. Additional large-scale randomized controlled studies are necessary to determine whether additional ablation might result in improved long-term ablation success rates in these patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,937,691
of 24,135,931 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#326
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,682
of 332,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,135,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.