Why the study?
Does the nMARQ ablation system improve atrial fibrillation non-recurrence and safety compared to conventional ablation techniques in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the nMARQ ablation system improve atrial fibrillation non-recurrence and safety compared to conventional ablation techniques in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Although nMARQ ablation showed higher odds of AF non-recurrence, a potential safety signal of increased mortality suggests conventional ablation should remain the preferred technique.
Retains conventional ablation as preferred despite nMARQ efficacy; leaves open safety questions for randomized confirmation.
Background and Objectives: Atrial fibrillation is a common abnormal cardiac rhythm caused by disorganized electrical impulses. AF which is not refractory to antiarrhythmic management is often treated with catheter ablation. Recently a novel ablation system (nMARQ) was introduced for PV isolation. However, there has not been a systematic review of its efficacy or safety compared to traditional ablation techniques. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis on the nMARQ ablation system. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched up until 1st of September 2017 for articles on nMARQ. A total of 136 studies were found, and after screening, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that the use of nMARQ was associated with higher odds of AF non-recurrence (n=1123, odds ratio =6.79, 95% confidence interval 4.01-11.50; P0.05). There were four reported mortalities in the nMARQ group compared to none in the conventional ablation group (relative risk: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.09-29.24; P>0.05). Conclusions: AF recurrence rates are comparable between nMARQ and conventional ablation techniques. Although general complication rates are similar for both groups, the higher mortality with nMARQ suggests that conventional techniques should be used for resistant AF until improved safety profiles of nMARQ can be demonstrated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: