MRI-guided fibrosis ablation plus PVI did not significantly reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with PVI alone (43.0% vs 46.1%; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.17; P=.63).
RCT (n=843)
Yes
Does pulmonary vein isolation plus MRI-guided atrial fibrosis ablation reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.95 (95% CI 0.77–1.17)
Absolute Event Rate: 43% vs 46.1%
p-value: p=.63
Importance: Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a challenge. Left atrial fibrosis plays an important role in the pathophysiology of AF and has been associated with poor procedural outcomes. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and adverse events of targeting atrial fibrosis detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in reducing atrial arrhythmia recurrence in persistent AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Efficacy of Delayed Enhancement-MRI-Guided Fibrosis Ablation vs Conventional Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 44 academic and nonacademic centers in 10 countries. A total of 843 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic persistent AF and undergoing AF ablation were enrolled from July 2016 to January 2020, with follow-up through February 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus MRI-guided atrial fibrosis ablation (421 patients) or PVI alone (422 patients). Delayed-enhancement MRI was performed in both groups before the ablation procedure to assess baseline atrial fibrosis and at 3 months postablation to assess for ablation scar. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period postablation. The primary safety composite outcome was defined by the occurrence of 1 or more of the following events within 30 days postablation: stroke, PV stenosis, bleeding, heart failure, or death. Results: Among 843 patients who were randomized (mean age 62.7 years; 178 21.1% women), 815 (96.9%) completed the 90-day blanking period and contributed to the efficacy analyses. There was no significant difference in atrial arrhythmia recurrence between groups (fibrosis-guided ablation plus PVI patients, 175 43.0% vs PVI-only patients, 188 46.1%; hazard ratio HR, 0.95 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .63). Patients in the fibrosis-guided ablation plus PVI group experienced a higher rate of safety outcomes (9 2.2% vs 0 in PVI group; P = .001). Six patients (1.5%) in the fibrosis-guided ablation plus PVI group had an ischemic stroke compared with none in PVI-only group. Two deaths occurred in the fibrosis-guided ablation plus PVI group, and the first one was possibly related to the procedure. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with persistent AF, MRI-guided fibrosis ablation plus PVI, compared with PVI catheter ablation only, resulted in no significant difference in atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Findings do not support the use of MRI-guided fibrosis ablation for the treatment of persistent AF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02529319.
Marrouche et al. (Tue,) conducted a rct in persistent atrial fibrillation (n=843). MRI-guided atrial fibrosis ablation plus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vs. PVI alone was evaluated on time to first atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period postablation (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77-1.17, p=.63). MRI-guided fibrosis ablation plus PVI did not significantly reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with PVI alone (43.0% vs 46.1%; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.17; P=.63).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: