Key result
Force-sensing guided pulmonary vein antrum modification yields similar sinus rhythm maintenance to conventional circumferential isolation.
Why the study?
It remained unclear whether curative ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation results from pulmonary vein isolation, pulmonary vein antrum modification (PVAM), or both.
Does force-sensing guided pulmonary vein antrum modification improve the maintenance of sinus rhythm compared to conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=180)
2:1
Does force-sensing guided pulmonary vein antrum modification improve the maintenance of sinus rhythm compared to conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
While pulmonary vein antrum modification alone does not significantly improve outcomes over conventional isolation, achieving both sufficient antrum modification and complete pulmonary vein isolation significantly increases arrhythmia-free survival in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Antrum modification does not improve sinus rhythm maintenance over circumferential isolation; confirms conventional approach as standard while extending evidence for combined complete isolation.
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the curative result of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is a result of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation, PV antrum modification (PVAM), or both. We hypothesized that sufficient antrum modification (PVAM) is as important as PV isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) control and that PVAM can be evaluated by quantified lesion deployment using a force-sensing catheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients of symptomatic PAF were randomly assigned 2:1 into a PVAM group or a circumferential PV isolation (CPVI) group. In the PVAM group, circumferential quantitative ablation evaluated by automatical VisiTag module was performed. In the CPVI group, conventional circumferential ablation was performed to achieve the end point of all-PV isolation. In total, 180 patients with PAF were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the PVAM group (n = 120) or the CPVI group (n = 60). A total of 179 patients successfully underwent ablation. In the PVAM group, 68 patients achieved all PVI (PVAM-PVI), while 51 did not (PVAM-non-PVI). At 18 months, there was no significant difference in the maintenance of sinus rhythm between the PVAM and CPVI groups (84.9 vs 79.7%, P = .382). The PVAM-PVI subgroup demonstrated a higher arrhythmia-free survival compared with the PVAM-non-PVI subgroup (92.6 vs 74.5%, P = .006) and the CPVI group (92.6 vs 79.7%, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: The trial shows that sufficient force-sensing guided PVAM can result in satisfying outcomes in PAF patients. Notably, sufficient PVAM with all-PV isolated will further increase the success rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) (n=180). Pulmonary vein antrum modification (PVAM) vs. Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) was evaluated on Maintenance of sinus rhythm (p=0.382). Force-sensing guided pulmonary vein antrum modification yielded similar maintenance of sinus rhythm at 18 months compared to conventional circumferential isolation (84.9% vs 79.7%, P=0.382).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: