May 3, 2018Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Comparison of treatment outcomes between convergent procedure and catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation evaluated with implantable loop recorder monitoring
Why the study?
Does the convergent procedure reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Population
50 patients with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, 74% male, from a single center.
Comparison
Convergent epicardial and endocardial ablation… vs Catheter ablation (CA)
Design
RCT, randomized between CA and CVP
Follow-up
mean 30.5 ± 6.9 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
CVP was associated with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than CA in paroxysmal AF; leaves open whether randomized trials would confirm benefit.
Structured PICO
Does the convergent procedure reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
P
Population
50 patients with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, 74% male, from a single center.
I
Intervention
Convergent epicardial and endocardial ablation procedure (CVP)
C
Comparator
Catheter ablation (CA)
O
Outcome
Recurrence of atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, or atrial flutter (defined as any episode lasting 6 minutes or more detected by implantable loop recorder) after a 3-month blanking periodcomposite
In patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, the convergent procedure reduces arrhythmia recurrence and AF burden compared to catheter ablation, but carries a higher risk of periprocedural complications.
Cite This Study
Jan et al. (2018) studied this question.