TABLE 4.
Outcomes in the Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients Referred for SN Ablation/Modification
| First Author (Ref. #), Year | Mean HR at Follow-Up | Symptoms Relief | Drugs in the Follow-Up | Requirement of Recurrence Months of Follow-Up PCM Implantation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et aL. (3), 1995 | 54.1 ± 5.3 beats/min (24-h HoLter) | 14 (87.5%) | 4 (25%) | 2 (1 patient treated with amiodarone and 1 patient treated with AVN abLation plus PCM) | 20.5 ± 0.3 | 3 (2 of those referred for SN abLation, who presented pre-syncope; and 1 in the SN modification due to recurrence, which was treated with AVN abLation pLus PCM. Three patients had a PCM previousLy impLanted) |
| CaLLans et aL. (5), 1999 | NA | NA | NA | 3 (30%) | NA | 1 patient required PCM implantation after complete SN abLation |
| Man et aL. (4), 2000 | 80 ± 8 beats/min (ECG) | 19 (66%) | 5 (17.2%) | 6 (27%) (redo procedure) | 32 ± 12 | 6 (1 due to sinus pauses, 5 due to persistence of the symptoms reason why they were referred for AVN abLation pLus PCM impLantation) |
| Marrouche et aL. (16), 2002 | 85 ± 5 (24-h HoLter) | 39 (100%) | NA | 8 (21%) (redo procedure) | 32 ± 9 | 0 (2 patients had previous PCM) |
| Bonhomme et aL. (13), 2003 | 70–80 beats/min (first patient); 60 beats/min (second patient) (24-h HoLter) | 2 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Takemoto et aL. (15), 2011 | 79 ± 1 beats/min (24-h HoLter) | 6 (100%) | 2 (33%) | 1 (16.6%) (redo procedure) | 12 | 0 |
| FrankeL et aL. (18), 2012 | 83.5 ± 15.7 beats/min | NA | 18 (54.54%) | 6 (18.2%) | 24 ± 18 | 4 (12.1%) |
| Jacobson et aL. (17), 2014 | NA | 5 (100%) | 0 | 1 (invasive surgical ablation) | 30.4 ± 18.4 | 0 (3 patients had previous implanted ICD or PCM) |
| Ibarra-Cortez et aL. (14), 2015 | 71.9 ± 10.8 beats/min | 10 (77%) | 2 (15.3%) | 3 (23%) | 27 ± 1.4 | 1 (1 patients had previous PCM) |
| TotaL | 78.26 ± 13.63 beats/min | 95/110 (86.36%) | 31/104 (29.8%) | 30 (19.6%) | 28.14 ± 12.64 | 15 (9.8%) (9 had previous PCM) |