Does XXXX response predict clinical recurrence of @entity955 after @entity358 ?

@entity1 @entity859 @entity2286 @entity358 @entity955
BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of @entity1 undergoing @entity358 ( @entity358 ) for @entity955 ( @entity955 ) have clinical recurrence of @entity955 , and a great majority of these @entity1 have recovery of vein conduction. @entity859 can be associated with acute recovery of conduction to the pulmonary veins immediately after isolation. However, it is not known whether this is prognostic for permanent recovery of conduction or recurrence of @entity955 . METHODS: @entity1 with paroxysmal @entity955 underwent @entity358 , with administration of @entity859 after electrical isolation. Those with transient conduction recovery (TCR+) underwent no further ablation and were compared to those without (TCR-) for clinical @entity955 recurrence and conduction recovery at second procedure. RESULTS: Seventy-two consecutive @entity358 @entity1 were studied (mean age 56.7    9.2, 61 male). Twenty-five (35%) @entity1 had transient recovery of conduction with @entity859 . After 1 year, 18 @entity1 (25%) had symptomatic recurrence of @entity955 . In this group of 18 @entity1 , 6 were TCR+ at initial ablation (sensitivity 33%, NPV = 74%). In the remaining group of 54 @entity1 free from @entity955 recurrence, 35 @entity1 (65%) were TCR- at initial ablation (specificity 65%, @entity2286 = 24%). All 18 @entity1 with recurrent @entity955 underwent repeat procedure and had at least 1 pulmonary vein with recurrent conduction. The initial @entity859 test correctly predicted 13 out of 36 (36%) veins, with positive predictive value 90% and negative predictive value 15%. CONCLUSIONS: @entity859 testing for TCR does not appear to predict recurrence of clinical @entity955 . TCR- veins remain susceptible to conduction recovery, as determined at the follow-up procedure.
