Aims Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. Methods and results We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). Conclusion Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688
Background A high proportion of patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) experience recurrence of arrhythmia. This meta-analysis aims to identify pre-ablation serum biomarker(s) associated with arrhythmia recurrence to improve patient selection before CA. Methods A systematic approach following PRISMA reporting guidelines was utilised in libraries (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus) and supplemented by scanning through bibliographies of articles. Biomarker levels were compared using a random-effects model and presented as odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was examined by meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results In total, 73 studies were identified after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Nine out of 22 biomarkers showed association with recurrence of AF after CA. High levels of N-Terminal-pro-B-type-Natriuretic Peptide [OR (95% CI), 3.11 (1.80–5.36)], B-type Natriuretic Peptide [BNP, 2.91 (1.74–4.88)], high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein [2.04 (1.28–3.23)], Carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I [1.89 (1.16–3.08)] and Interleukin-6 [1.83 (1.18–2.84)] were strongly associated with identifying patients with AF recurrence. Meta-regression highlighted that AF type had a significant impact on BNP levels (heterogeneity R2 = 55%). Subgroup analysis showed that high BNP levels were more strongly associated with AF recurrence in paroxysmal AF (PAF) cohorts compared to the addition of non-PAF patients. Egger’s test ruled out the presence of publication bias from small-study effects. Conclusion Ranking biomarkers based on the strength of association with outcome provides each biomarker relative capacity to predict AF recurrence. This will provide randomised controlled trials, a guide to choosing a priori tool for identifying patients likely to revert to AF, which are required to substantiate these findings. Graphical abstract
Background Global simultaneous recording of atrial activation during atrial fibrillation (AF) can elucidate underlying mechanisms contributing to AF maintenance. A better understanding of these mechanisms may allow for an individualized ablation strategy to treat persistent AF. The study aims to characterize left atrial endocardial activation patterns during AF using noncontact charge‐density mapping. Methods Twenty‐five patients with persistent AF were studied. Activation patterns were characterized into three subtypes: (i) focal with centrifugal activation (FCA); (ii) localized rotational activation (LRA); and (iii) localized irregular activation (LIA). Continuous activation patterns were analyzed and distributed in 18 defined regions in the left atrium. Results A total of 144 AF segments with 1068 activation patterns were analyzed. The most common pattern during AF was LIA (63%) which consists of four disparate features of activation: slow conduction (45%), pivoting (30%), collision (16%), and acceleration (7%). LRA was the second‐most common pattern (20%). FCA accounted for 17% of all activations, arising frequently from the pulmonary veins (PVs)/ostia. A majority of patients (24/25; 96%) showed continuous and highly dynamic patterns of activation comprising multiple combinations of FCA, LRA, and LIA, transitioning from one to the other without a discernible order. Preferential conduction areas were typically seen in the mid‐anterior (48%) and lower‐posterior (40%) walls. Conclusion Atrial fibrillation is characterized by heterogeneous activation patterns identified in PV‐ostia and non‐PV regions throughout the LA at varying locations between individuals. Clinical implications of individualized ablation strategies guided by charge‐density mapping need to be determined.
Background: The efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with functional mitral regurgitation (MR) and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LVSD) is not known. The aim of the study is to determine the efficacy of catheter ablation for AF in patients with functional MR and LVSD, and to validate its effects on the severity of MR and cardiac reverse remodeling.Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 54 patients with functional MR who underwent AF ablation, including 21 (38.9%) with LVSD and 33 (61.1%) with normal LV systolic function (LVF). The primary outcomes evaluated were freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa), severity of MR, and left atrial (LA) and LV remodeling.Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.7 ± 16.8 months, freedom from recurrent ATa was not significantly different between patients with LVSD and those with normal LVF after the first ablation (P = 0.301) and after multiple ablations (P = 0.728). Multivariable predictors of recurrent ATa were AF duration [hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.25; P = 0.039), previous stroke (HR 5.28, 95% CI 1.46–19.14; P = 0.011), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95–0.99; P = 0.012). Compared with baseline, there was a significant reduction in severity of MR (P = 0.007), LA size (P < 0.001) and LV end-systolic dimension (P = 0.008), and improvement in the LV ejection fraction (P = 0.001) after restoring sinus rhythm in patients with LVSD.Conclusion: Catheter ablation is a valid option for the treatment of AF in patients with functional MR and LVSD, even though multiple procedures may be required.
Recent studies have developed our understanding of the role of the immune system and inflammation in Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), opening new avenues for risk stratification and therapeutic intervention. However, gaps in our knowledge remain. To address this issue, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders has launched a Collection on “Immunity and Inflammation in Cardiovascular Disorders”.
Background Standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation may be more effective than catheter ablation in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Objectives To determine whether or not surgical ablation is clinically superior to catheter ablation as the first-line treatment strategy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Design This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised control trial. Setting Four NHS tertiary centres in England. Participants Adults with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, who had European Heart Rhythm Association symptom scores > 2 and who were naive to previous catheter ablation or thoracic/cardiac surgery. Interventions Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional catheter ablation (control intervention). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was freedom from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia ≥ 30 seconds after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (class 1C/3) at 1 year, excluding a 3-month blanking period. The secondary outcomes include the intervention-related major complication rate; clinical success (≥ 75% reduction in arrhythmia burden); and changes in symptoms, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Methods Patients (n = 120) were randomised to surgical ablation (n = 60) or catheter ablation (n = 60). An implanted loop recorder provided continuous cardiac monitoring following ablation. Follow-up visits were at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Loop recorder data were reviewed monthly by a physiologist who was blinded to the randomisation outcome. Results The study treatment was received by 55 patients in the surgical ablation arm and 60 patients in the catheter ablation arm; five patients withdrew from surgical ablation before treatment. Data from randomised and treated patients were analysed as per intention to treat. Patients had a mean age of 62.3 (standard deviation 9.6) years, were predominantly male (74%), had a mean left atrial diameter of 44.6 mm (standard deviation 6 mm) and were in continuous atrial fibrillation for 22 months (range 16–31 months). At 12 months, 26% of patients in the surgical ablation arm (14/54) and 28% of patients in the catheter ablation arm (17/60) were free from atrial arrhythmias after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.83; p = 0.84). An arrhythmia burden reduction of ≥ 75% was seen in 36 out of 54 (67%) patients in the surgical ablation arm, compared with 46 out of 60 (77%) patients in the catheter ablation arm (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.08; p = 0.3). Procedure-related serious complications within 30 days of the intervention occurred in 15% (8/55) of patients in the surgical ablation arm (including one death) compared with 10% (6/60) of patients in the catheter ablation arm (p = 0.46). Surgical ablation was associated with significantly higher costs (£23,221 vs. £18,186; p = 0.02) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years than catheter ablation (0.76 vs. 0.83; p = 0.02). Limitations This study was conducted in four highly specialised cardiology centres that have substantial experience in both treatment modalities; therefore, the results may not be widely generalisable. The study was not powered to detect small differences in efficacy. Conclusions We found no evidence to suggest that standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation outcomes were superior to catheter ablation outcomes in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. Moreover, surgical ablation is associated with a longer hospital stay, smaller improvements in quality of life and higher health-care costs than catheter ablation (standard care therapy). Future work Evaluation of the impact of ablation treatments on sinus rhythm maintenance and quality of life with extended follow-up to 3 years. Model-based economic analysis to estimate long-term benefits, harms and costs of surgical and catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02755688. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This study was supported by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is part funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.