Dataset Information

Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study).

ABSTRACT: Catheter ablation (CA) is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT). No randomized studies have compared the two strategies in persistent AF. The present randomized trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of CA vs. ADT in treating persistent AF.Patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to CA or ADT (excluding patients with long-standing persistent AF). Primary endpoint at 12-month follow-up was defined as any episode of AF or atrial flutter lasting >24 h that occurred after a 3-month blanking period. Secondary endpoints were any atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting >30 s, hospitalization, and electrical cardioversion. In total, 146 patients were included (aged 55 ± 9 years, 77% male). The ADT group received class Ic (43.8%) or class III drugs (56.3%). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 69 of 98 patients (70.4%) in the CA group and 21 of 48 patients (43.7%) in the ADT group were free of the primary endpoint (P = 0.002), implying an absolute risk difference of 26.6% (95% CI 10.0-43.3) in favour of CA. The proportion of patients free of any recurrence (>30 s) was higher in the CA group than in the ADT group (60.2 vs. 29.2%; P < 0.001) and cardioversion was less frequent (34.7 vs. 50%, respectively; P = 0.018).Catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF at 12-month follow-up.NCT00863213 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00863213).

SUBMITTER: Mont L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3930872 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study).

Mont Lluís L Bisbal Felipe F Hernández-Madrid Antonio A Pérez-Castellano Nicasio N Viñolas Xavier X Arenal Angel A Arribas Fernando F Fernández-Lozano Ignacio I Bodegas Andrés A Cobos Albert A Matía Roberto R Pérez-Villacastín Julián J Guerra José M JM Ávila Pablo P López-Gil María M Castro Victor V Arana José Ignacio JI Brugada Josep J

European heart journal 20131017 8

<h4>Background</h4>Catheter ablation (CA) is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT). No randomized studies have compared the two strategies in persistent AF. The present randomized trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of CA vs. ADT in treating persistent AF.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Patients with persistent AF were randomly assigned to CA or ADT (excluding patients with long-standing persisten ...[more]

PMID: 24135832

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial.MethodsThe authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach.ResultsMedian age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF.ConclusionsCatheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).

Project description:ImportanceCatheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited success. Procedural strategies beyond pulmonary vein isolation have failed to consistently improve results. The vein of Marshall contains innervation and AF triggers that can be ablated by retrograde ethanol infusion.ObjectiveTo determine whether vein of Marshall ethanol infusion could improve ablation results in persistent AF when added to catheter ablation.Design, setting, and participantsThe Vein of Marshall Ethanol for Untreated Persistent AF (VENUS) trial was an investigator-initiated, National Institutes of Health-funded, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted in 12 centers in the United States. Patients (N = 350) with persistent AF referred for first ablation were enrolled from October 2013 through June 2018. Follow-up concluded in June 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to catheter ablation alone (n = 158) or catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion (n = 185) in a 1:1.15 ratio to accommodate for 15% technical vein of Marshall ethanol infusion failures.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia for longer than 30 seconds after a single procedure, without antiarrhythmic drugs, at both 6 and 12 months. Outcome assessment was blinded to randomization treatment. There were 12 secondary outcomes, including AF burden, freedom from AF after multiple procedures, perimitral block, and others.ResultsOf the 343 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.7] years; 261 men), 316 (92.1%) completed the trial. Vein of Marshall ethanol was successfully delivered in 155 of 185 patients. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients with freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia after a single procedure was 49.2% (91/185) in the catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion group compared with 38% (60/158) in the catheter ablation alone group (difference, 11.2% [95% CI, 0.8%-21.7%]; P = .04). Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 9 were not significantly different, but AF burden (zero burden in 78.3% vs 67.9%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 2.9%-17.9%]; P = .01), freedom from AF after multiple procedures (65.2% vs 53.8%; difference, 11.4% [95% CI, 0.6%-22.2%]; P = .04), and success achieving perimitral block (80.6% vs 51.3%; difference, 29.3% [95% CI, 19.3%-39.3%]; P < .001) were significantly improved in vein of Marshall-treated patients. Adverse events were similar between groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with persistent AF, addition of vein of Marshall ethanol infusion to catheter ablation, compared with catheter ablation alone, increased the likelihood of remaining free of AF or atrial tachycardia at 6 and 12 months. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01898221.

Project description:ImportanceCatheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF.Design, setting, and participantsThe Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017.InterventionsThe catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence.ResultsOf the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Dataset Information

Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study).

Publications

Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets