Why the study?
Does cryoballoon ablation compared to mesh ablator ablation improve efficacy and safety (including silent stroke risk) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Does cryoballoon ablation compared to mesh ablator ablation improve efficacy and safety (including silent stroke risk) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
The MACPAF study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety, particularly regarding silent cerebral thromboembolism, of cryoballoon versus mesh ablator for pulmonary vein isolation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of the pulmonary veins has become accepted as a standard therapeutic approach for symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is some evidence for an ablation associated (silent) stroke risk, lowering the hope to limit the stroke risk by restoration of rhythm over rate control in AF. The purpose of the prospective randomized single-center study "Mesh Ablator versus Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Ablation of Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation" (MACPAF) is to compare the efficacy and safety of two balloon based pulmonary vein ablation systems in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients are randomized 1:1 for the Arctic Front(R) or the HD Mesh Ablator(R) catheter for left atrial catheter ablation (LACA). The predefined endpoints will be assessed by brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), neuro(psycho)logical tests and a subcutaneously implanted reveal recorder for AF detection. According to statistics 108 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: Findings from the MACPAF trial will help to balance the benefits and risks of LACA for symptomatic paroxysmal AF. Using serial brain MRIs might help to identify patients at risk for LACA-associated cerebral thromboembolism. Potential limitations of the study are the single-center design, the existence of a variety of LACA-catheters, the missing placebo-group and the impossibility to assess the primary endpoint in a blinded fashion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01061931.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hæusler et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: