Literature DB >> 29092038

Results of the first investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial of nMARQTM, PVACTM, and thoracoscopic ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Conn Sugihara1, Steve Furniss2, Jonathan Hyde3, Michael Lewis3, Neil Sulke2.   

Abstract

Aims: To investigate the effect of minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and nMARQ irrigated multi-electrode phased radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with PVAC multi-electrode phased RF ablation, with beat-to-beat device-derived Holter monitoring throughout the study duration. Methods and results: An investigator-initiated prospective trial of patients with paroxysmal AF randomized (1:1:1) to initial surgical, nMARQ or PVAC ablation. All patients had continuous beat-to-beat monitoring with an ILR or pacemaker to evaluate and document AF recurrence. There was a strong trend (P = 0.050) toward difference in AF outcome, with surgical AF ablation more efficacious than catheter ablation. At one year, the proportion of patients with less than 1% AF burden after one procedure and off all antiarrhythmic drugs was 63, 56, and 90% for PVAC, nMARQ and surgical ablations respectively. There were significantly more repeat ablations in the catheter ablation groups (P = 0.008): 25% PVAC, 27% nMARQ, 0% surgery. However, 7 of 20 (35%) of patients undergoing surgical ablation suffered a procedural complication, including two sternotomies for bleeding and one death. This was higher than for catheter ablation (P < 0.001). Surgical ablation took longer to perform (P < 0.001) and had a longer hospital admission (P < 0.001) than catheter ablation.
Conclusion: Surgical AF ablation required significantly fewer repeat procedures than catheter ablation, and there was a clear trend towards improved arrhythmia outcome. However, it was associated with a significantly higher rate of procedural complications. Surgical ablation for paroxysmal AF is promising, however more prospective outcome data is required. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01504451, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01504451.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29092038     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eux267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  3 in total

1.  Catheter vs thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Tom Kai Ming Wang; Yi-Wen Becky Liao; Michael Tzu Min Wang; Andrew Martin
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2020-07-03

2.  Early experience of thoracoscopic vs. catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Charles M Pearman; James Redfern; Emmanuel A Williams; Richard L Snowdon; Paul Modi; Mark C S Hall; Simon Modi; Johan E P Waktare; Saagar Mahida; Derick M Todd; Neeraj Mediratta; Dhiraj Gupta
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 5.214

3.  Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Endpoints of Five Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Tongyu Wang; Tingting Fang; Zeyi Cheng
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-06-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.