BACKGROUND: The single-procedure efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is less than optimal in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Adjunctive techniques have been developed to enhance single-procedure efficacy in these patients. We conducted a study to compare 3 ablation strategies in patients with persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects were randomized as follows: arm 1, PVI + ablation of non-PV triggers identified using a stimulation protocol (standard approach); arm 2, standard approach + empirical ablation at common non-PV AF trigger sites (mitral annulus, fossa ovalis, eustachian ridge, crista terminalis, and superior vena cava); or arm 3, standard approach + ablation of left atrial complex fractionated electrogram sites. Patients were seen at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; transtelephonic monitoring was performed at each visit. Antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued at 3 to 6 months. The primary study end point was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs at 1 year after a single-ablation procedure. A total of 156 patients (aged 59±9 years; 136 males; AF duration, 47±50 months) participated (arm 1, 55 patients; arm 2, 50 patients; arm 3, 51 patients). Procedural outcomes (procedure, fluoroscopy, and PVI times) were comparable between the 3 arms. More lesions were required to target non-PV trigger sites than a complex fractionated electrogram (33±9 versus 22±9; P<0.001). The primary end point was achieved in 71 patients and was worse in arm 3 (29%) compared with arm 1 (49%; P=0.04) and arm 2 (58%; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that additional substrate modification beyond PVI does not improve single-procedure efficacy in patients with persistent AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00379301.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The single-procedure efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is less than optimal in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Adjunctive techniques have been developed to enhance single-procedure efficacy in these patients. We conducted a study to compare 3 ablation strategies in patients with persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects were randomized as follows: arm 1, PVI + ablation of non-PV triggers identified using a stimulation protocol (standard approach); arm 2, standard approach + empirical ablation at common non-PV AF trigger sites (mitral annulus, fossa ovalis, eustachian ridge, crista terminalis, and superior vena cava); or arm 3, standard approach + ablation of left atrial complex fractionated electrogram sites. Patients were seen at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; transtelephonic monitoring was performed at each visit. Antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued at 3 to 6 months. The primary study end point was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs at 1 year after a single-ablation procedure. A total of 156 patients (aged 59±9 years; 136 males; AF duration, 47±50 months) participated (arm 1, 55 patients; arm 2, 50 patients; arm 3, 51 patients). Procedural outcomes (procedure, fluoroscopy, and PVI times) were comparable between the 3 arms. More lesions were required to target non-PV trigger sites than a complex fractionated electrogram (33±9 versus 22±9; P<0.001). The primary end point was achieved in 71 patients and was worse in arm 3 (29%) compared with arm 1 (49%; P=0.04) and arm 2 (58%; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that additional substrate modification beyond PVI does not improve single-procedure efficacy in patients with persistent AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00379301.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Sanjiv M Narayan; Tina Baykaner; Paul Clopton; Amir Schricker; Gautam G Lalani; David E Krummen; Kalyanam Shivkumar; John M Miller Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343