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

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)

Anticoagulation, therapy of concomitant conditions, and early rhythm control therapy: a detailed analysis of treatment patterns in the EAST - AFNET 4 trial.

AIMS: Treatment patterns were compared between randomized groups in EAST-AFNET 4 to assess whether differences in anticoagulation, therapy of concomitant diseases, or intensity of care can explain the clinical benefit achieved with early rhythm control in EAST-AFNET 4. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiovascular treatment patterns and number of visits were compared between randomized groups in EAST-AFNET 4. Oral anticoagulation was used in >90% of patients during follow-up without differences between randomized groups. There were no differences in treatment of concomitant conditions between groups. The type of rhythm control varied by country and centre. Over time, antiarrhythmic drugs were given to 1171/1395 (84%) patients in early therapy, and to 202/1394 (14%) in usual care. Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation was performed in 340/1395 (24%) patients randomized to early therapy, and in 168/1394 (12%) patients randomized to usual care. 97% of rhythm control therapies were within class I and class III recommendations of AF guidelines. Patients randomized to early therapy transmitted 297 166 telemetric electrocardiograms (ECGs) to a core lab. In total, 97 978 abnormal ECGs were sent to study sites. The resulting difference between study visits was low (0.06 visits/patient/year), with slightly more visits in early therapy (usual care 0.39 visits/patient/year; early rhythm control 0.45 visits/patient/year, P < 0.001), mainly due to visits for symptomatic AF recurrences or recurrent AF on telemetric ECGs. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of early, systematic rhythm control therapy was achieved using variable treatment patterns of antiarrhythmic drugs and AF ablation, applied within guideline recommendations

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.)