Dataset Information

Effect of Catheter Ablation With Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion vs Catheter Ablation Alone on Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The VENUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Catheter 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.

Objective

To determine whether vein of Marshall ethanol infusion could improve ablation results in persistent AF when added to catheter ablation.

Design, setting, and participants

The 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.

Interventions

Patients 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 measures

The 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.

Results

Of 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 relevance

Among 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01898221.

SUBMITTER: Valderrabano M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7592031 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMarshall vein ethanol infusion (MVEI) as an additional therapy to conventional catheter ablation (CA) has been proved to be efficacious in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). However, whether empirical MVEI could be the first-line strategy in mitral isthmus (MI) ablation has seldom been investigated. Here, we aim to compare the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes between provisional and empirical MVEI in PeAF patients undergoing the index MI ablation procedure.MethodsWe enrolled 133 patients with PeAF either in the provisional group (n = 38, MVEI was performed when conventional endocardial and/or epicardial ablation procedures were inadequate to achieve bidirectional MI block) or in the empirical group (n = 95, MVEI was performed empirically before MI CA).ResultsAll of the baseline characteristics were comparable. Less spontaneous or inducible atrial tachycardias (ATs) were encountered in the empirical group of patients (P < 0.001). More epicardial ablations were applied (26.3% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.016) and a higher incidence of CA-facilitated restoration of sinus rhythm was recorded (86.8% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.001) in the provisional group of patients. Although more fluoroscopy time (6.4[4.2, 9.3] vs. 9.5[5.9, 11.6] min, P = 0.019) and radiation exposure (69.0[25.3, 160.2] vs. 122.0[62.5, 234.1] mGy, P = 0.010) were documented in the empirical group with comparable procedure time, less time (455.9 ± 192.2 vs. 366.5 ± 161.3 s, P = 0.038) was consumed to achieve bidirectional MI block during endocardial ablation in the provisional group. Incidences of procedure-related complications were similar between the two groups. During a 16.5 ± 4.4-month follow-up, the empirical group of patients showed a significantly higher rate of freedom from AT recurrence (95.8% vs. 81.6%, log-rank P = 0.003), while the rate of freedom from AF or atrial tachyarrhythmias (combining AF and AT) was similar. Both univariate (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.64, P = 0.008) and multivariate (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.92, P = 0.037) Cox regression analyses indicated that empirical MVEI was independently associated with lower long-term AT recurrence.ConclusionAmong patients with PeAF who underwent the index MI ablation procedure, empirical MVEI could reduce endocardial MI ablation time and provide greater long-term freedom from AT recurrence.