BACKGROUND: Myocardial fibrosis is key for atrial fibrillation maintenance. We aimed to test the efficacy of ablating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-detected atrial fibrosis plus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS: This was an open-label, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. Patients with symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (paroxysmal and persistent) undergoing first or repeat ablation were randomized in a 1:1 basis to receive PVI plus CMR-guided fibrosis ablation (CMR group) or PVI alone (PVI-alone group). The primary end point was the rate of recurrence (>30 seconds) at 12 months of follow-up using a 12-lead ECG and Holter monitoring at 3, 6, and 12 months. The analysis was conducted by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients (71% male, age 59±10, CHA2DS2-VASc 1.3±1.1, 54% paroxysmal atrial fibrillation) were allocated to the PVI-alone group (N=76) or CMR group (N=79). First ablation was performed in 80% and 71% of patients in the PVI-alone and CMR groups, respectively. The mean atrial fibrosis burden was 12% (only ≈50% of patients had fibrosis outside the pulmonary vein area). One hundred percent and 99% of patients received the assigned intervention in the PVI-alone and CMR group, respectively. The primary outcome was achieved in 21 patients (27.6%) in the PVI-alone group and 22 patients (27.8%) in the CMR group (odds ratio: 1.01 [95% CI, 0.50-2.04]; P=0.976). There were no differences in the rate of adverse events (3 in the CMR group and 2 in the PVI-alone group; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatic ablation approach targeting CMR-detected atrial fibrosis plus PVI was not more effective than PVI alone in an unselected population undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation with low fibrosis burden. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02698631.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Myocardial fibrosis is key for atrial fibrillation maintenance. We aimed to test the efficacy of ablating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-detected atrial fibrosis plus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS: This was an open-label, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. Patients with symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (paroxysmal and persistent) undergoing first or repeat ablation were randomized in a 1:1 basis to receive PVI plus CMR-guided fibrosis ablation (CMR group) or PVI alone (PVI-alone group). The primary end point was the rate of recurrence (>30 seconds) at 12 months of follow-up using a 12-lead ECG and Holter monitoring at 3, 6, and 12 months. The analysis was conducted by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients (71% male, age 59±10, CHA2DS2-VASc 1.3±1.1, 54% paroxysmal atrial fibrillation) were allocated to the PVI-alone group (N=76) or CMR group (N=79). First ablation was performed in 80% and 71% of patients in the PVI-alone and CMR groups, respectively. The mean atrial fibrosis burden was 12% (only ≈50% of patients had fibrosis outside the pulmonary vein area). One hundred percent and 99% of patients received the assigned intervention in the PVI-alone and CMR group, respectively. The primary outcome was achieved in 21 patients (27.6%) in the PVI-alone group and 22 patients (27.8%) in the CMR group (odds ratio: 1.01 [95% CI, 0.50-2.04]; P=0.976). There were no differences in the rate of adverse events (3 in the CMR group and 2 in the PVI-alone group; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatic ablation approach targeting CMR-detected atrial fibrosis plus PVI was not more effective than PVI alone in an unselected population undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation with low fibrosis burden. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02698631.
Authors: Leon Iden; Sonia Busch; Daniel Steven; Roland R Tilz; Dong-In Shin; K R Julian Chun; Heidi Estner; Felix Bourier; David Duncker; Philipp Sommer; Andreas Metzner; Tilman Maurer; Nils-Christian Ewertsen; Henning Jansen; Andreas Rillig; Victoria Johnson; Till Althoff Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2021-07-26
Authors: Luuk H G A Hopman; Pranav Bhagirath; Mark J Mulder; Iris N Eggink; Albert C van Rossum; Cornelis P Allaart; Marco J W Götte Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Nassir F Marrouche; Oussama Wazni; Christopher McGann; Tom Greene; J Michael Dean; Lilas Dagher; Eugene Kholmovski; Moussa Mansour; Francis Marchlinski; David Wilber; Gerhard Hindricks; Christian Mahnkopf; Darryl Wells; Pierre Jais; Prashanthan Sanders; Johannes Brachmann; Jeroen J Bax; Leonie Morrison-de Boer; Thomas Deneke; Hugh Calkins; Christian Sohns; Nazem Akoum Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Caroline H Roney; Charles Sillett; John Whitaker; Jose Alonso Solis Lemus; Iain Sim; Irum Kotadia; Mark O'Neill; Steven E Williams; Steven A Niederer Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ehud J Schmidt; Gregory Olson; Junichi Tokuda; Akbar Alipour; Ronald D Watkins; Eric M Meyer; Hassan Elahi; William G Stevenson; Jeffrey Schweitzer; Charles L Dumoulin; Thomas Johnson; Aravindan Kolandaivelu; Wolfgang Loew; Henry R Halperin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.737