Polydoros N Kampaktsis1,2, Evangelos K Oikonomou2,3, Daniel Y Choi1, Jim W Cheung4. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medicine - New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th Street, Starr 4, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 2. Cardiology Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medicine - New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th Street, Starr 4, New York, NY, 10021, USA. jac9029@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adjunctive ganglionated plexi (GP) ablation may improve success rates for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) when combined with pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Existing meta-analyses on GP ablation have included observational studies and have not incorporated more recent randomized clinical trial data. Moreover, the impact of AF subtype (paroxysmal vs. persistent) on outcomes of GP ablation has not been well established. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GP ablation + pulmonary vein (PV) isolation versus PV isolation alone according to the subtype of AF. The primary endpoint was freedom from sustained AF or atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) after a single procedure. RESULTS: Across four RCTs, 718 patients (358 and 360 that underwent GP ablation + PV isolation [intervention] vs. PV isolation alone [control], respectively) were included in the study. Mean left atrial size and left ventricular ejection fraction were 45.7 mm and 54.8%, respectively. Among paroxysmal AF patients, GP ablation was linked to significantly higher freedom from AT/AF (75.8 vs. 60.0% for the intervention vs. control arms respectively; OR [95% CI]: 2.22 [1.36-3.61], P = 0.001). Among persistent AF patients, GP ablation was associated with a non-significant trend towards higher rates of freedom from AT/AF (54.7 vs. 43.3% for the intervention vs. control arms respectively; OR [95% CI]: 1.55 [0.96-2.52], P = 0.08). In all cases, heterogeneity was found to be low (I 2 of 32% or lower). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PV isolation alone, GP ablation + PV isolation is associated with better outcomes in patients with paroxysmal AF and without significant structural heart disease.
PURPOSE: Adjunctive ganglionated plexi (GP) ablation may improve success rates for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) when combined with pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Existing meta-analyses on GP ablation have included observational studies and have not incorporated more recent randomized clinical trial data. Moreover, the impact of AF subtype (paroxysmal vs. persistent) on outcomes of GP ablation has not been well established. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GP ablation + pulmonary vein (PV) isolation versus PV isolation alone according to the subtype of AF. The primary endpoint was freedom from sustained AF or atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) after a single procedure. RESULTS: Across four RCTs, 718 patients (358 and 360 that underwent GP ablation + PV isolation [intervention] vs. PV isolation alone [control], respectively) were included in the study. Mean left atrial size and left ventricular ejection fraction were 45.7 mm and 54.8%, respectively. Among paroxysmal AFpatients, GP ablation was linked to significantly higher freedom from AT/AF (75.8 vs. 60.0% for the intervention vs. control arms respectively; OR [95% CI]: 2.22 [1.36-3.61], P = 0.001). Among persistent AFpatients, GP ablation was associated with a non-significant trend towards higher rates of freedom from AT/AF (54.7 vs. 43.3% for the intervention vs. control arms respectively; OR [95% CI]: 1.55 [0.96-2.52], P = 0.08). In all cases, heterogeneity was found to be low (I 2 of 32% or lower). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PV isolation alone, GP ablation + PV isolation is associated with better outcomes in patients with paroxysmal AF and without significant structural heart disease.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Antoine H G Driessen; Wouter R Berger; Sébastien P J Krul; Nicoline W E van den Berg; Jolien Neefs; Femke R Piersma; Dean R P P Chan Pin Yin; Jonas S S G de Jong; WimJan P van Boven; Joris R de Groot Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eugene Patterson; Ralph Lazzara; Bela Szabo; Hong Liu; David Tang; Yu-Hua Li; Benjamin J Scherlag; Sunny S Po Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Zhibing Lu; Benjamin J Scherlag; Jiaxiong Lin; Guodong Niu; Kar-Ming Fung; Lichao Zhao; Muhammad Ghias; Warren M Jackman; Ralph Lazzara; Hong Jiang; Sunny S Po Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2008-06-23
Authors: Demosthenes G Katritsis; Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; Eleftherios Giazitzoglou; George C M Siontis; Sunny S Po; A John Camm; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mark T Stewart; David E Haines; Damijan Miklavčič; Bor Kos; Nicole Kirchhof; Noah Barka; Lars Mattison; Matt Martien; Birce Onal; Brian Howard; Atul Verma Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2021-03-10