Ablation of perimitral flutter following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: impact on outcomes from a randomized study (PROPOSE)

MVI Block vs Trigger Ablation in PMFL . Introduction: Patients with previous ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience recurrence of perimitral flutter (PMFL). These arrhythmias are usually triggered from sources that may also induce AF. This study aims at determining whether ablation of triggers or completing mitral valve isthmus (MVI) block prevents more arrhythmia recurrences. Methods and Results: Sixty‐five patients with recurrent PMFL after initial ablation of long standing persistent AF were included in this study. Thirty‐two patients were randomized to MVI ablation only (Group 1) and 33 were randomized to cardioversion and repeat pulmonary vein (PV) isolation plus ablation of non‐PV triggers (Group 2). MVI bidirectional block was achieved in all but 1 patient from Group 1. In Group 2, reconnection of 17 PVs was detected in 14 patients (42%). With isoproterenol challenge, 44 non‐PV trigger sites were identified in 28 patients (85%, 1.57 sites per patient). At 18‐month follow‐up, 27 patients (84%) from Group 1 had recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, of whom 15 remained on antiarrhythmic drug (AAD); however, 28 patients from Group 2 (85%, P < 0.0001 vs Group 1) were free from arrhythmia off AAD. The ablation strategy used in Group 2 was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.10, 95% CI 0.04–0.28, P < 0.001) and an improved arrhythmia‐free survival (log rank P < 0.0001). Conclusion: In patients presenting with PMFL after ablation for longstanding persistent AF, MVI block had limited impact on arrhythmia recurrence. On the other hand, elimination of all PV and non‐PV triggers achieved higher freedom from atrial arrhythmias at follow‐up. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 137‐144, February 2012)     

Intraosseous carcinoma of the jaws—A clinicopathologic review. Part I: Metastatic and salivary‐type carcinomas

This is the first part of a 3‐part comprehensive review of intraosseous carcinoma of the jaws. We have outlined 4 groups of intraosseous carcinoma of the jaws (metastatic, salivary‐type, odontogenic, and primary intraosseous carcinoma), emphasizing the need for accurate diagnosis and the problems associated with changing classification systems, standardization of diagnostic criteria and nomenclature, and the accuracy of existing literature. In this first part, the features of metastatic and the very rare salivary‐type carcinomas of the jaws are examined with particular emphasis on histologic and immunohistochemical characteristics, diagnostic difficulties, and uncertainties. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2012