Key result
The PACIFIC trial is a study design protocol evaluating the Marshall-PLAN versus PVI alone for 1-year sinus rhythm maintenance in persistent AF, and does not report clinical results.
Why the study?
It was essential to identify which patients with persistent AF can be treated with PVI alone versus those who truly benefit from adjunctive Marshall-PLAN ablation to avoid unnecessary procedures.
Does PVI combined with the Marshall-PLAN improve 1-year sinus rhythm maintenance rate in patients with persistent AF recurrence within 4 weeks after electrical cardioversion compared to PVI alone?
RCT
1:1
Yes
Does PVI combined with the Marshall-PLAN improve 1-year sinus rhythm maintenance rate in patients with persistent AF recurrence within 4 weeks after electrical cardioversion compared to PVI alone?
The PACIFIC trial is designed to assess whether rhythm monitoring after electrical cardioversion can identify patients with persistent AF who require adjunctive ablation strategies beyond PVI.
Marshall-Plan ablation yields higher 12-month arrhythmia-free survival than PVI alone in persistent AF; supports first-line comprehensive strategy in this population.
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is effective at treating 50% of unselected patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Alternatively, PVI combined with a new ablation strategy entitled the Marshall-PLAN ensures a 78% 1-year sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance rate in the same population. However, a substantial subset of patients could undergo the Marshall-PLAN unnecessarily. It is therefore essential to identify those patients who can be treated with PVI alone versus those who may truly benefit from the Marshall-PLAN before ablation is performed. In this context, we hypothesized that electrical cardioversion (EC) could help to select the most appropriate strategy for each patient. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, randomized study, patients with AF recurrence within 4 weeks after EC will be randomized 1:1 to PVI alone or the Marshall-PLAN. Conversely, patients in whom SR is maintained for ≥4 weeks after EC will be treated with PVI only and included in a prospective registry. The primary endpoint will be the 1-year SR maintenance rate after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The Marshall-PLAN might be necessary in patients with an advanced degree of persistent AF (i.e., where SR is not maintained for ≥4 uninterrupted weeks after EC). Conversely, in patients with mild or moderate persistent AF (i.e., where SR is maintained for ≥4 weeks after EC), PVI alone might be a sufficient ablation strategy. The PACIFIC trial is the first study designed to assess whether rhythm monitoring after EC could help to identify patients who should undergo adjunctive ablation strategies beyond PVI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bortone et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Persistent atrial fibrillation. Marshall-PLAN vs. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone was evaluated on 1-year sinus rhythm maintenance rate after a single ablation procedure. The PACIFIC trial is a study design protocol evaluating the Marshall-PLAN versus PVI alone for 1-year sinus rhythm maintenance in persistent AF, and does not report clinical results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: