Key result
Adding left atrial linear lesions to PVI and CFAE ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation improved the rate of sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs to 76% vs 59% (P=0.03).
Why the study?
Does the addition of left atrial linear lesions with or without cavotricuspid isthmus ablation to PVI and CFAE ablation reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=210)
randomized
Does the addition of left atrial linear lesions with or without cavotricuspid isthmus ablation to PVI and CFAE ablation reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 59%
p-value: p=0.03
In patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, adding left atrial linear lesions to PVI and CFAE ablation improves long-term sinus rhythm maintenance, whereas additional cavotricuspid isthmus ablation provides no further benefit.
Supports adding left atrial linear lesions to PVI+CFAE ablation in long-standing persistent AF; extends ablation strategies with RCT data.
BACKGROUND: This randomized prospective study compared three ablation strategies in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LPeAF). It also explored the best procedural endpoint from among the following: circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) + left atrial (LA) linear lesions (roofline, mitral isthmus) + complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation, PVI + LA linear lesions + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation + CFAE ablation, and PVI + CFAE ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 210 patients with LPeAF referred for catheter ablation were enrolled and randomized into three ablation groups. The patients in group A (n = 70) underwent PVI followed by LA linear and CFAE ablation; in 93% of patients the primary endpoint was achieved (five patients with incomplete linear lesions). Of the 70 patients in group B who were subjected to PVI followed by LA linear, CFAE, and CTI ablations, in 94% of patients the primary endpoint was achieved (four patients with incomplete linear lesions). All patients in group C (n = 70) successfully underwent PVI and CFAE ablation. Direct current cardioversion was performed upon PVI, CFAE elimination, and completion of linear lesions. Patients were followed-up for atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence for at least 24 months. After a single ablation procedure, group C (36%) exhibited the lowest success compared with group A (54%) and group B (51%) (P = 0.06). At the mean follow-up of 32 ± 9 months after the final ablation procedure, 53 patients (76%) in group A, 53 (76%) in group B, and 41 (59%) in group C were in sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In LPeAF, linear lesions in the LA help improve outcome of ablation, additional CTI ablation does not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LPeAF) (n=210). PVI + LA linear lesions + CFAE ablation (with or without CTI ablation) vs. PVI + CFAE ablation was evaluated on sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs after the final ablation procedure (p=0.03). Adding left atrial linear lesions to PVI and CFAE ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation improved the rate of sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic drugs to 76% vs 59% (P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: