We have located links that may give you full text access.
Results of the first investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial of nMARQTM, PVACTM, and thoracoscopic ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Aims: To investigate the effect of minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and nMARQ irrigated multi-electrode phased radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with PVAC multi-electrode phased RF ablation, with beat-to-beat device-derived Holter monitoring throughout the study duration.
Methods and results: An investigator-initiated prospective trial of patients with paroxysmal AF randomized (1:1:1) to initial surgical, nMARQ or PVAC ablation. All patients had continuous beat-to-beat monitoring with an ILR or pacemaker to evaluate and document AF recurrence. There was a strong trend (P = 0.050) toward difference in AF outcome, with surgical AF ablation more efficacious than catheter ablation. At one year, the proportion of patients with less than 1% AF burden after one procedure and off all antiarrhythmic drugs was 63, 56, and 90% for PVAC, nMARQ and surgical ablations respectively. There were significantly more repeat ablations in the catheter ablation groups (P = 0.008): 25% PVAC, 27% nMARQ, 0% surgery. However, 7 of 20 (35%) of patients undergoing surgical ablation suffered a procedural complication, including two sternotomies for bleeding and one death. This was higher than for catheter ablation (P < 0.001). Surgical ablation took longer to perform (P < 0.001) and had a longer hospital admission (P < 0.001) than catheter ablation.
Conclusion: Surgical AF ablation required significantly fewer repeat procedures than catheter ablation, and there was a clear trend towards improved arrhythmia outcome. However, it was associated with a significantly higher rate of procedural complications. Surgical ablation for paroxysmal AF is promising, however more prospective outcome data is required.
Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01504451, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01504451.
Methods and results: An investigator-initiated prospective trial of patients with paroxysmal AF randomized (1:1:1) to initial surgical, nMARQ or PVAC ablation. All patients had continuous beat-to-beat monitoring with an ILR or pacemaker to evaluate and document AF recurrence. There was a strong trend (P = 0.050) toward difference in AF outcome, with surgical AF ablation more efficacious than catheter ablation. At one year, the proportion of patients with less than 1% AF burden after one procedure and off all antiarrhythmic drugs was 63, 56, and 90% for PVAC, nMARQ and surgical ablations respectively. There were significantly more repeat ablations in the catheter ablation groups (P = 0.008): 25% PVAC, 27% nMARQ, 0% surgery. However, 7 of 20 (35%) of patients undergoing surgical ablation suffered a procedural complication, including two sternotomies for bleeding and one death. This was higher than for catheter ablation (P < 0.001). Surgical ablation took longer to perform (P < 0.001) and had a longer hospital admission (P < 0.001) than catheter ablation.
Conclusion: Surgical AF ablation required significantly fewer repeat procedures than catheter ablation, and there was a clear trend towards improved arrhythmia outcome. However, it was associated with a significantly higher rate of procedural complications. Surgical ablation for paroxysmal AF is promising, however more prospective outcome data is required.
Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01504451, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01504451.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app