Remote magnetic versus manual catheters: evaluation of ablation effect in atrial fibrillation by myocardial marker levels

Background A remote magnetic navigation (MN) system is available for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), challenging the conventional manual ablation technique. The myocardial markers were measured to compare the effects of the two types of MN catheters with those of a manual-irrigated catheter in AF ablation. Methods AF patients underwent an ablation procedure using either a conventional manual-irrigated catheter (CIR, n=65) or an MN system utilizing either an irrigated (RMI, n=23) or non-irrigated catheter (RMN, n=26). Levels of troponin T (TnT) and the cardiac isoform of creatin kinase (CKMB) were measured before and after ablation. Results Mean procedure times and total ablation times were longer employing the remote magnetic system. In all groups, there were pronounced increases in markers of myocardial injury after ablation, demonstrating a significant correlation between total ablation time and post-ablation levels of TnT and CKMB (CIR r=0.61 and 0.53, p<0.001; RMI r=0.74 and 0.73, p<0.001; and RMN r=0.51 and 0.59, p<0.01). Time-corrected release of TnT was significantly higher in the CIR group than in the other groups. Of the patients, 59.6% were free from AF at follow-up (12.2± 5.4 months) and there were no differences in success rate between the three groups. Conclusions Remote magnetic catheters may create more discrete and predictable ablation lesions measured by myocardial enzymes and may require longer total ablation time to reach the procedural endpoints. Remote magnetic non-irrigated catheters do not appear to be inferior to magnetic irrigated catheters in terms of myocardial enzyme release and clinical outcome

Early Rhythm Control Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST-AFNET4 trial (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared with usual care (allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the 2 primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms New York Heart Association II to III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. RESULTS: This analysis included 798 patients (300 [37.6%] female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had heart failure and preserved LVEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61±6.3%), the others had heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF 40%-49%; mean LVEF 44 ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31±5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomly assigned to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomly assigned to usual care (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.56-0.97]; P=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction P value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71 of 396 (17.9%) patients with heart failure randomly assigned to ERC and in 87 of 402 (21.6%) patients with heart failure randomly assigned to usual care (hazard ratio, 0.85 [0.62-1.17]; P=0.33). LVEF improved in both groups (LVEF change at 2 years: ERC 5.3±11.6%, usual care 4.9±11.6%, P=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within 1 year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01288352. URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN04708680. URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu; Unique identifier: 2010-021258-20

Rationale and current perspective for early rhythm control therapy in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia and an important source for mortality and morbidity on a population level. Despite the clear association between AF and death, stroke, and other cardiovascular events, there is no evidence that rhythm control treatment improves outcome in AF patients. The poor outcome of rhythm control relates to the severity of the atrial substrate for AF not only due to the underlying atrial remodelling process but also due to the poor efficacy and adverse events of the currently available ion-channel antiarrhythmic drugs and ablation techniques. Data suggest, however, an association between sinus rhythm maintenance and improved survival. Hypothetically, sinus rhythm may also lead to a lower risk of stroke and heart failure. The presence of AF, thus, seems one of the modifiable factors associated with death and cardiovascular morbidity in AF patients. Patients with a short history of AF and the underlying heart disease have not been studied before. It is fair to assume that abolishment of AF in these patients is more successful and possibly also safer, which could translate into a prognostic benefit of early rhythm control therapy. Several trials are now investigating whether aggressive early rhythm control therapy can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and increase maintenance of sinus rhythm. In the present paper we describe the background of these studies and provide some information on their design

Systematic, early rhythm control strategy for atrial fibrillation in patients with or without symptoms: the EAST-AFNET 4 trial.

AIMS: Clinical practice guidelines restrict rhythm control therapy to patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The EAST-AFNET 4 trial demonstrated that early, systematic rhythm control improves clinical outcomes compared to symptom-directed rhythm control. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prespecified EAST-AFNET 4 analysis compared the effect of early rhythm control therapy in asymptomatic patients (EHRA score I) to symptomatic patients. Primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or hospitalization with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome, analyzed in a time-to-event analysis. At baseline, 801/2633 (30.4%) patients were asymptomatic [mean age 71.3 years, 37.5% women, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.4, 169/801 (21.1%) heart failure]. Asymptomatic patients randomized to early rhythm control (395/801) received similar rhythm control therapies compared to symptomatic patients [e.g. AF ablation at 24 months: 75/395 (19.0%) in asymptomatic; 176/910 (19.3%) symptomatic patients, P = 0.672]. Anticoagulation and treatment of concomitant cardiovascular conditions was not different between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The primary outcome occurred in 79/395 asymptomatic patients randomized to early rhythm control and in 97/406 patients randomized to usual care (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [0.6; 1.03]), almost identical to symptomatic patients. At 24 months follow-up, change in symptom status was not different between randomized groups (P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of early, systematic rhythm control was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in EAST-AFNET 4. These results call for a shared decision discussing the benefits of rhythm control therapy in all patients with recently diagnosed AF and concomitant cardiovascular conditions (EAST-AFNET 4; ISRCTN04708680; NCT01288352; EudraCT2010-021258-20)

Early Rhythm-Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in the management of atrial fibrillation, patients with this condition remain at increased risk for cardiovascular complications. It is unclear whether early rhythm-control therapy can reduce this risk. METHODS: In this international, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, open, blinded-outcome-assessment trial, we randomly assigned patients who had early atrial fibrillation (diagnosed ≤1 year before enrollment) and cardiovascular conditions to receive either early rhythm control or usual care. Early rhythm control included treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs or atrial fibrillation ablation after randomization. Usual care limited rhythm control to the management of atrial fibrillation-related symptoms. The first primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or hospitalization with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome; the second primary outcome was the number of nights spent in the hospital per year. The primary safety outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm-control therapy. Secondary outcomes, including symptoms and left ventricular function, were also evaluated. RESULTS: In 135 centers, 2789 patients with early atrial fibrillation (median time since diagnosis, 36 days) underwent randomization. The trial was stopped for efficacy at the third interim analysis after a median of 5.1 years of follow-up per patient. A first-primary-outcome event occurred in 249 of the patients assigned to early rhythm control (3.9 per 100 person-years) and in 316 patients assigned to usual care (5.0 per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.79; 96% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.94; P = 0.005). The mean (±SD) number of nights spent in the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups (5.8±21.9 and 5.1±15.5 days per year, respectively; P = 0.23). The percentage of patients with a primary safety outcome event did not differ significantly between the groups; serious adverse events related to rhythm-control therapy occurred in 4.9% of the patients assigned to early rhythm control and 1.4% of the patients assigned to usual care. Symptoms and left ventricular function at 2 years did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes than usual care among patients with early atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular conditions. (Funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and others; EAST-AFNET 4 ISRCTN number, ISRCTN04708680; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01288352; EudraCT number, 2010-021258-20.)

Moderne Technologien in der Ablation des Vorhofflimmerns

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has become an accepted therapy. The arrhythmia affects around 6% of the population over the age of 65 years. Electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins from the left atrium is the central strategy in catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. However, procedural outcomes and efficacy using sequential “point-by-point” radiofrequency lesion creation with a conventional ablation catheter are operator-dependent and time-consuming. Moreover, re-conduction across an initially complete lesion leads to recovery in electrical isolation of the pulmonary vein and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. New energy sources such as cryothermia, ultrasound and laser have emerged and are currently under investigation. These apply “single-shot” lesions via balloon mounted catheters positioned at the pulmonary vein ostia. Other new tools, such as magnetic navigation system and electromechanical robotic system, allow complete remote controlled mapping and ablation by combining three dimensional electroanatomical mapping. All these tools and technologies have to prove their effectiveness and safety