Left Atrial Function Predicts Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence Following Ablation of Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundLeft atrial (LA) function following catheter or surgical ablation of de-novo long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on AF recurrence was studied in patients participating in the CASA-AF trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation).MethodsAll patients underwent echocardiography preablation, 3 and 12 months post-ablation. LA structure and function were assessed by 2-dimensional volume and speckle tracking strain measurements of LA reservoir, conduit, and contractile strain. Left ventricular diastolic function was measured using transmitral Doppler filling velocities and myocardial tissue Doppler velocities to derive the e', E/e', and E/A ratios. Continuous rhythm monitoring was achieved using an implantable loop recorder.ResultsEighty-three patients had echocardiographic data suitable for analysis. Their mean age was 63.6±9.7 years, 73.5% were male, had AF for 22.8±11.6 months, and had a mean LA maximum volume of 48.8±13.8 mL/m2. Thirty patients maintained sinus rhythm, and 53 developed AF recurrence. Ablation led to similar reductions in LA volumes at follow-up in both rhythm groups. However, higher LA emptying fraction (36.3±10.6% versus 27.9±9.9%; PP=0.001), and contractile strain (9.2±3.4% versus 5.6±2.5%; PPPConclusionsFollowing ablation for long-standing persistent AF, improvement in LA function was greater in those who maintained sinus rhythm. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the most important determinant of AF recurrence following ablation.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT02755688

Catheter Ablation Versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: CASA-AF Randomised Controlled Trial

AimsLong-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF.Methods and resultsWe randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02).ConclusionSingle procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA.Clinical Trial RegistrationISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688</div