Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation

Atul Verma, Chen yang Jiang, Timothy R. Betts, Jian Chen, Isabel Deisenhofer, Roberto Mantovan, Laurent Macle, Carlos A. Morillo, Wilhelm Haverkamp, Rukshen Weerasooriya, Jean Paul Albenque, Stefano Nardi, Endrj Menardi, Paul Novak, Prashanthan Sanders, STAR AF II Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

782 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with pulmonary-vein isolation alone (67 patients), pulmonary-vein isolation plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or pulmonary-vein isolation plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients). The duration of follow-up was 18 months. The primary end point was freedom from any documented recurrence of atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS: Procedure time was significantly shorter for pulmonary-vein isolation alone than for the other two procedures (P<0.001). After 18 months, 59% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation alone were free from recurrent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 49% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus complex electrogram ablation and 46% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus linear ablation (P = 0.15). There were also no significant differences among the three groups for the secondary end points, including freedom from atrial fibrillation after two ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Complications included tamponade (three patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (three patients), and atrioesophageal fistula (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, we found no reduction in the rate of recurrent atrial fibrillation when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1812-1822
Number of pages11
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume372
Issue number19
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 May 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Verma, A., Jiang, C. Y., Betts, T. R., Chen, J., Deisenhofer, I., Mantovan, R., ... STAR AF II Investigators (2015). Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(19), 1812-1822. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1408288
Verma, Atul ; Jiang, Chen yang ; Betts, Timothy R. ; Chen, Jian ; Deisenhofer, Isabel ; Mantovan, Roberto ; Macle, Laurent ; Morillo, Carlos A. ; Haverkamp, Wilhelm ; Weerasooriya, Rukshen ; Albenque, Jean Paul ; Nardi, Stefano ; Menardi, Endrj ; Novak, Paul ; Sanders, Prashanthan ; STAR AF II Investigators. / Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 372, No. 19. pp. 1812-1822.
@article{5bebdf986c7441cb90769d4dd20dd07f,
title = "Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with pulmonary-vein isolation alone (67 patients), pulmonary-vein isolation plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or pulmonary-vein isolation plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients). The duration of follow-up was 18 months. The primary end point was freedom from any documented recurrence of atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS: Procedure time was significantly shorter for pulmonary-vein isolation alone than for the other two procedures (P<0.001). After 18 months, 59{\%} of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation alone were free from recurrent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 49{\%} of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus complex electrogram ablation and 46{\%} of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus linear ablation (P = 0.15). There were also no significant differences among the three groups for the secondary end points, including freedom from atrial fibrillation after two ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Complications included tamponade (three patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (three patients), and atrioesophageal fistula (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, we found no reduction in the rate of recurrent atrial fibrillation when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation.",
author = "Atul Verma and Jiang, {Chen yang} and Betts, {Timothy R.} and Jian Chen and Isabel Deisenhofer and Roberto Mantovan and Laurent Macle and Morillo, {Carlos A.} and Wilhelm Haverkamp and Rukshen Weerasooriya and Albenque, {Jean Paul} and Stefano Nardi and Endrj Menardi and Paul Novak and Prashanthan Sanders and {STAR AF II Investigators}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1056/NEJMoa1408288",
language = "English",
volume = "372",
pages = "1812--1822",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "19",

}

Verma, A, Jiang, CY, Betts, TR, Chen, J, Deisenhofer, I, Mantovan, R, Macle, L, Morillo, CA, Haverkamp, W, Weerasooriya, R, Albenque, JP, Nardi, S, Menardi, E, Novak, P, Sanders, P & STAR AF II Investigators 2015, 'Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 19, pp. 1812-1822. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1408288

Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. / Verma, Atul; Jiang, Chen yang; Betts, Timothy R.; Chen, Jian; Deisenhofer, Isabel; Mantovan, Roberto; Macle, Laurent; Morillo, Carlos A.; Haverkamp, Wilhelm; Weerasooriya, Rukshen; Albenque, Jean Paul; Nardi, Stefano; Menardi, Endrj; Novak, Paul; Sanders, Prashanthan; STAR AF II Investigators.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 372, No. 19, 07.05.2015, p. 1812-1822.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation

AU - Verma, Atul

AU - Jiang, Chen yang

AU - Betts, Timothy R.

AU - Chen, Jian

AU - Deisenhofer, Isabel

AU - Mantovan, Roberto

AU - Macle, Laurent

AU - Morillo, Carlos A.

AU - Haverkamp, Wilhelm

AU - Weerasooriya, Rukshen

AU - Albenque, Jean Paul

AU - Nardi, Stefano

AU - Menardi, Endrj

AU - Novak, Paul

AU - Sanders, Prashanthan

AU - STAR AF II Investigators

PY - 2015/5/7

Y1 - 2015/5/7

N2 - BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with pulmonary-vein isolation alone (67 patients), pulmonary-vein isolation plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or pulmonary-vein isolation plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients). The duration of follow-up was 18 months. The primary end point was freedom from any documented recurrence of atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS: Procedure time was significantly shorter for pulmonary-vein isolation alone than for the other two procedures (P<0.001). After 18 months, 59% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation alone were free from recurrent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 49% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus complex electrogram ablation and 46% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus linear ablation (P = 0.15). There were also no significant differences among the three groups for the secondary end points, including freedom from atrial fibrillation after two ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Complications included tamponade (three patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (three patients), and atrioesophageal fistula (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, we found no reduction in the rate of recurrent atrial fibrillation when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation.

AB - BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is less successful for persistent atrial fibrillation than for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Guidelines suggest that adjuvant substrate modification in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation is required in persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 589 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation in a 1:4:4 ratio to ablation with pulmonary-vein isolation alone (67 patients), pulmonary-vein isolation plus ablation of electrograms showing complex fractionated activity (263 patients), or pulmonary-vein isolation plus additional linear ablation across the left atrial roof and mitral valve isthmus (259 patients). The duration of follow-up was 18 months. The primary end point was freedom from any documented recurrence of atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single ablation procedure. RESULTS: Procedure time was significantly shorter for pulmonary-vein isolation alone than for the other two procedures (P<0.001). After 18 months, 59% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation alone were free from recurrent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 49% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus complex electrogram ablation and 46% of patients assigned to pulmonary-vein isolation plus linear ablation (P = 0.15). There were also no significant differences among the three groups for the secondary end points, including freedom from atrial fibrillation after two ablation procedures and freedom from any atrial arrhythmia. Complications included tamponade (three patients), stroke or transient ischemic attack (three patients), and atrioesophageal fistula (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, we found no reduction in the rate of recurrent atrial fibrillation when either linear ablation or ablation of complex fractionated electrograms was performed in addition to pulmonary-vein isolation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928975016&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1408288

DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1408288

M3 - Article

VL - 372

SP - 1812

EP - 1822

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

T2 - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 19

ER -

Verma A, Jiang CY, Betts TR, Chen J, Deisenhofer I, Mantovan R et al. Approaches to catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015 May 7;372(19):1812-1822. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1408288