MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1056/nejmoa2307291

Медицинская библиотека · The New England journal of medicine · 2023

Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

Reddy Vivek Y, Gerstenfeld Edward P, Natale Andrea, Whang William, Cuoco Frank A, Patel Chinmay, Mountantonakis Stavros E, Gibson Douglas N, Harding John D, Ellis Christopher R, Ellenbogen Kenneth A, DeLurgio David B, Osorio Jose, Achyutha Anitha B, Schneider Christopher W, Mugglin Andrew S, Albrecht Elizabeth M, Stein Kenneth M, Lehmann John W, Mansour Moussa, ADVENT Investigators

Сравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation is an effective treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pulsed field ablation, which delivers microsecond high-voltage electrical fields, may limit damage to tissues outside the myocardium. The efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation as compared with conventional thermal ablation are not known.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we assigned patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to undergo pulsed field ablation or conventional radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety end point included acute and chronic device- and procedure-related serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 305 patients were assigned to undergo pulsed field ablation, and 302 were assigned to undergo thermal ablation. At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point was met (i.e., no events occurred) in 204 patients (estimated probability, 73.3%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 194 patients (estimated probability, 71.3%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -5.2 to 9.2; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Primary safety end-point events occurred in 6 patients (estimated incidence, 2.1%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 4 patients (estimated incidence, 1.5%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -1.5 to 2.8; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation receiving a catheter-based therapy, pulsed field ablation was noninferior to conventional thermal ablation with respect to freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation and with respect to device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 year. (Funded by Farapulse-Boston Scientific; ADVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04612244.).

Для цитирования: Reddy Vivek Y, Gerstenfeld Edward P, Natale Andrea, Whang William, Cuoco Frank A, Patel Chinmay, Mountantonakis Stavros E, Gibson Douglas N, Harding John D, Ellis Christopher R, Ellenbogen Kenneth A, DeLurgio David B, Osorio Jose, Achyutha Anitha B, Schneider Christopher W, Mugglin Andrew S, Albrecht Elizabeth M, Stein Kenneth M, Lehmann John W, Mansour Moussa, ADVENT Investigators. Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.. The New England journal of medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa2307291.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.