Key result
EIVOM-based ablation strategies significantly improved 12-month freedom from any atrial arrhythmia compared with PVI without ethanol infusion (74.5% vs 62.7%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Pulmonary vein isolation alone achieves modest arrhythmia freedom in persistent atrial fibrillation, and the efficacy and safety of ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall as an adjunctive strategy needed quantification across randomized controlled trials.
Does adjunctive ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM)-based catheter ablation improve 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with pulmonary vein isolation without EIVOM in adults with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,179)
Open-label procedural interventions with blinded outcome assessors
Parallel-group randomized controlled trials
Yes
Does adjunctive ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM)-based catheter ablation improve 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with pulmonary vein isolation without EIVOM in adults with persistent atrial fibrillation?
In persistent atrial fibrillation, integrating ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall into catheter ablation strategies significantly improves 12-month arrhythmia-free survival (NNT=10) and halves repeat ablation rates without increasing major complications.
EIVOM integration into persistent AF ablation improves outcomes; confirms benefit across 5 RCTs (NNT=10).
Background and Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone achieves modest arrhythmia freedom in persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM) overcomes heat-sink effects, facilitating mitral isthmus (MI) block, and may represent an effective adjunctive ablation strategy. We aimed to quantify the efficacy and safety of EIVOM through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods and Results Systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PubMed identified 5 RCTs enrolling 1,179 patients (602 EIVOM, 577 control). The primary endpoint was 12-month freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Random-effects models generated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event data were pooled using a generic inverse-variance approach to derive hazard ratios (HR). EIVOM-based strategies improved freedom from any arrhythmia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04–1.29; P<0.001; NNT=10) and from AF (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05–1.18; P<0.001; NNT=13). Time-to-event analysis demonstrated a sustained reduction in recurrence hazard (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.81; P=0.003; I2=0%). Repeat ablation was reduced (RR 0.61; P=0.009). Fluoroscopy time increased (+9.08 minutes; P=0.007), while major complications were comparable (2.5% vs 2.8%; P=0.47). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary for benefit for the primary endpoint, indicating that the available evidence is sufficient Conclusion In PeAF, EIVOM-based ablation strategies significantly improve 12-month arrhythmia-free survival and reduce repeat procedures without increasing major adverse events. However, the observed benefit reflects composite ablation sets rather than ethanol infusion in isolation, and the predominance of high-volume expert centres may limit generalizability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bola et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) (n=1,179). Ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM)-based catheter ablation strategies (PVI plus adjunctive EIVOM and variable linear ablation) vs. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone (or PVI plus empirical linear ablation without EIVOM) was evaluated on 12-month freedom from any atrial arrhythmia recurrence (composite of AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia >30 s duration following the blanking period) (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29, p=<0.001). EIVOM-based ablation strategies significantly improved 12-month freedom from any atrial arrhythmia compared with PVI without ethanol infusion (74.5% vs 62.7%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: