JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2023
Hybrid Ablation Versus Repeated Catheter Ablation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
van der Heijden Claudia A J, Weberndörfer Vanessa, Vroomen Mindy, Luermans Justin G, Chaldoupi Sevasti-Maria, Bidar Elham, Vernooy Kevin, Maessen Jos G, Pison Laurent, van Kuijk Sander M J, La Meir Mark, Crijns Harry J G M, Maesen Bart
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although catheter ablation (CA) is successful for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), results are less satisfactory in persistent AF. Hybrid ablation (HA) results in better outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (persAF), as it combines a thoracoscopic epicardial and transvenous endocardial approach in a single procedure.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA with CA in a prospective, superiority, unblinded, randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Forty-one ablation-naive patients with (long-standing)-persAF were randomized to HA (n = 19) or CA (n = 22) and received pulmonary vein isolation, posterior left atrial wall isolation and, if needed, a cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia >5 minutes off antiarrhythmic drugs after 12 months. The primary and secondary safety endpoints included major and minor complications and the total number of serious adverse events.
RESULTS: After 12 months, the freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs was higher in the HA group compared with the CA group (89% vs 41%, P = 0.002). There was 1 pericarditis requiring pericardiocentesis and 1 femoral arteriovenous-fistula in the HA group. In the CA arm, 1 bleeding from the femoral artery occurred. There were no deaths, strokes, need for pacemaker implantation, or conversions to sternotomy, and the number of (serious) adverse events was comparable between groups (21% vs 14%, P = 0.685).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid AF ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure and results in better outcomes than catheter ablation for the treatment of patients with persistent AF. (Hybrid Versus Catheter Ablation in Persistent AF [HARTCAP-AF]; NCT02441738).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA with CA in a prospective, superiority, unblinded, randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Forty-one ablation-naive patients with (long-standing)-persAF were randomized to HA (n = 19) or CA (n = 22) and received pulmonary vein isolation, posterior left atrial wall isolation and, if needed, a cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia >5 minutes off antiarrhythmic drugs after 12 months. The primary and secondary safety endpoints included major and minor complications and the total number of serious adverse events.
RESULTS: After 12 months, the freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs was higher in the HA group compared with the CA group (89% vs 41%, P = 0.002). There was 1 pericarditis requiring pericardiocentesis and 1 femoral arteriovenous-fistula in the HA group. In the CA arm, 1 bleeding from the femoral artery occurred. There were no deaths, strokes, need for pacemaker implantation, or conversions to sternotomy, and the number of (serious) adverse events was comparable between groups (21% vs 14%, P = 0.685).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid AF ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure and results in better outcomes than catheter ablation for the treatment of patients with persistent AF. (Hybrid Versus Catheter Ablation in Persistent AF [HARTCAP-AF]; NCT02441738).