Regional differences in outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: Results from the CABANA trial.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpected variations in treatment benefits by geographic region in international clinical trials raises complex questions about the interpretation and generalizability of trial findings. We observed such geographical variations in outcome and in the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus drug therapy in the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial. This paper describes these differences and investigates potential causes. METHODS: The examination of treatment effects by geographic region was a prespecified analysis. CABANA enrolled patients from 10 countries, with 1,285 patients at 85 North American (NA) sites and 919 at 41 non-NA sites. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Death and first atrial fibrillation recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At least 1 primary endpoint event occurred in 157 patients (12.2%) from NA and 33 (3.6%) from non-NA sites over a median 54.9 and 40.5 months of follow-up, respectively (NA/non-NA adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-3.21, P < .001). In NA patients, 78 events occurred in the ablation and 79 in the drug arm, (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66, 1.24) while 11 and 22 events occurred in non-NA patients (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25,1.05, interaction P = .154). Death occurred in 53 ablation and 51 drug therapy patients in the NA group (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65,1.42) and in 5 ablation and 16 drug therapy patients in the non-NA group (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12,0.86, interaction P = .044). Adjusting for baseline regional differences or prognostic risk variables did not account for the regional differences in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was reduced by ablation in both regions (NA: HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.63; non-NA: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64, interaction P = .322). CONCLUSIONS: In CABANA, primary outcome events occurred significantly more often in the NA group but assignment to ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the non-NA group only. These differences were not explained by regional variations in procedure effectiveness, safety, or patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0091150; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00911508.

Association Between Age and Outcomes of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Use of Ripple mapping to enhance localization and ablation of outflow tract premature ventricular contractions.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate localization of septal outflow tract premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) is often difficult due to frequent mid-myocardial or protected origin. Compared with traditional activation mapping, CARTO Ripple mapping provides visualization of all captured electrogram data without assignment of a specific local activation time and thus may enhance PVC localization. METHODS: Electroanatomic maps for consecutive catheter ablation procedures for septal outflow tract PVCs (July 2018-December 2020) were analyzed. For each PVC, we identified the earliest local activation point (EA), defined by the point of maximal -dV/dt in a simultaneously recorded unipolar electrogram, and the earliest Ripple signal (ERS), defined as the earliest point at which three grouped simultaneous Ripple bars appeared in late diastole. Immediate success was defined as full suppression of the clinical PVC. RESULTS: Fifty-seven unique PVCs in 55 procedures were included. When ERS and EA were in the same chamber (RV, LV, or CS), the odds ratio for the successful procedure was 13.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-79.9, p = .005). Discordance between sites was associated with a higher likelihood of needing multi-site ablation (odds ratio [OR] 7.9 [1.4-4.6; p = .020]). Median EA-ERS distance in successful versus unsuccessful cases was 4.6 mm (interquartile range 2.9-8.5) versus 12.5 mm (7.8-18.5); (p = .020). CONCLUSION: Greater EA-ERS concordance was associated with higher odds of single-site PVC suppression and successful septal outflow tract PVC ablation. Visualization of complex signals via automated Ripple mapping may offer rapid localization information complementary to local activation mapping for PVCs of mid-myocardial origin.

Association Between Sex and Treatment Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Versus Drug Therapy: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. RESULTS: CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) (P<0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P=0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62-1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51-0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40-0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF), several clinical trials have reported improved outcomes, including freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life, and survival, with catheter ablation. This article describes the treatment-related outcomes of the AF patients with heart failure enrolled in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: The CABANA trial randomized 2204 patients with AF who were ≥65 years old or <65 years old with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation or drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs. Of these, 778 (35%) had New York Heart Association class >II at baseline and form the subject of this article. The CABANA trial's primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Of the 778 patients with heart failure enrolled in CABANA, 378 were assigned to ablation and 400 to drug therapy. Ejection fraction at baseline was available for 571 patients (73.0%), and 9.3% of these had an ejection fraction <40%, whereas 11.7% had ejection fractions between 40% and 50%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ablation arm had a 36% relative reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.99]) and a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-0.96]) compared with drug therapy alone over a median follow-up of 48.5 months. AF recurrence was decreased with ablation (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42-0.74]). The adjusted mean difference for the AFEQT (Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life) summary score averaged over the entire 60-month follow-up was 5.0 points, favoring the ablation arm (95% CI, 2.5-7.4 points), and the MAFSI (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptom Inventory) frequency score difference was -2.0 points, favoring ablation (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF enrolled in the CABANA trial who had clinically diagnosed stable heart failure at trial entry, catheter ablation produced clinically important improvements in survival, freedom from AF recurrence, and quality of life relative to drug therapy. These results, obtained in a cohort most of whom had preserved left ventricular function, require independent trial verification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00911508; Unique identifier: NCT0091150.

Leadless pacemaker implantation after lead extraction for cardiac implanted electronic device infection.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) pocket and systemic infection remain common complications with traditional CIEDs and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Leadless pacemakers may be an attractive pacing alternative for many patients following complete hardware removal for a CIED infection by eliminating surgical pocket-related complications as well as lower risk of recurrent complications. OBJECTIVE: To describe use and outcomes associated with leadless pacemaker implantation following extraction of a CIED system due to infection. METHODS: Patient characteristics and postprocedural outcomes were described in patients who underwent leadless pacemaker implantation at Duke University Hospital between November 11, 2014 and November 18, 2019, following CIED infection and device extraction. Outcomes of interest included procedural complications, pacemaker syndrome, need for system revision, and recurrent infection. RESULTS: Among 39 patients, the mean age was 71 ± 17 years, 31% were women, and the most frequent primary pacing indication was complete heart block (64.1%) with 9 (23.1%) patients being pacemaker dependent at the time of Micra implantation. The primary organism implicated in the CIED infection was Staphylococcus aureus (43.6%). Nine of the 39 patients had a leadless pacemaker implanted before or on the same day as their extraction procedure, and the remaining 30 patients had a leadless pacemaker implanted after their extraction procedure. During follow-up (mean 24.8 ± 14.7 months) after leadless pacemaker implantation, there were a total of 3 major complications: 1 groin hematoma, 1 femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 case of pacemaker syndrome. No patients had evidence of recurrent CIED infection after leadless pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a prior CIED infection and an elevated risk of recurrent infection, there was no evidence of CIED infection with a mean follow up of over 2 years following leadless pacemaker implantation at or after CIED system removal. Larger studies with longer follow-up are required to determine if there is a long-term advantage to implanting a leadless pacemaker versus a traditional pacemaker following temporary pacing when needed during the periextraction period in patients with a prior CIED infection.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

Acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic response to his-bundle pacing in patients with first-degree atrioventricular block.

BACKGROUND: Atrial pacing and right ventricular (RV) pacing are both associated with adverse outcomes among patients with first-degree atrioventricular block (1°AVB). His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological activation of the ventricle and may be able to improve both atrioventricular (AV) and inter-ventricular synchrony in 1°AVB patients. This study evaluates the acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic effects of atrial, atrial-His-bundle sequential (AH), and atrial-ventricular (AV) sequential pacing in 1°AVB patients. METHODS: Patients with 1°AVB undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation were included. Following left atrial (LA) catheterization, patients underwent atrial, AH- and AV-sequential pacing. LA/left ventricular (LV) pressure and echocardiographic measurements during the pacing protocols were compared. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with 1°AVB (mean PR 221 ± 26 ms) were included. The PR interval was prolonged with atrial pacing compared to baseline (275 ± 73 ms, p = .005). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest during atrial pacing (62 ± 11%), intermediate with AH-sequential pacing (59 ± 7%), and lowest with AV-sequential pacing (57 ± 12%) though these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in LA or LV mean pressures or LV dP/dT. LA and LV volumes, isovolumetric times, electromechanical delays, and global longitudinal strains were similar across pacing protocols. CONCLUSION: Despite pronounced PR prolongation, the acute effects of atrial pacing were not significantly different than AH- or AV-sequential pacing. Normalizing atrioventricular and/or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony did not result in acute improvements in cardiac output or loading conditions.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in cardiac amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis is a progressive infiltrative disease involving deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium and cardiac conduction system that frequently manifests with heart failure (HF) and arrhythmias, most frequently atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), and atrial tachycardia (AT). METHODS: We performed an observational retrospective study of patients with a diagnosis of cardiac amyloid who underwent catheter ablation at our institution between January 1, 2011 and December 1, 2018. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were determined by manual chart review. RESULTS: A total of 13 catheter ablations were performed over the study period in patients with cardiac amyloidosis, including 10 AT/AF/AFL ablations and three atrioventricular nodal ablations. Left ventricular ejection fraction was lower at the time of AV node ablation than catheter ablation of AT/AF/AFL (23% vs 40%, P = .003). Cardiac amyloid was diagnosed based on the results of preablation cardiac MRI results in the majority of patients (n = 7, 70%). The HV interval was prolonged at 60 ± 15 ms and did not differ significantly between AV nodal ablation patients and AT/AF/AFL ablation patients (69 ± 18 ms vs 57 ± 14 ms, P = .36). The majority of patients undergoing AT/AF/AFL ablation had persistent AF (n = 7, 70%) and NYHA class II (n = 5, 50%) or III (n = 5, 50%) HF symptoms, whereas patients undergoing AV node ablation were more likely to have class IV HF (n = 2, 66%, P = .014). Arrhythmia-free survival in CA patients after catheter ablation of AT/AF/AFL was 40% at 1 year and 20% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of AT/AF/AFL may be a feasible strategy for appropriately selected patients with early to mid-stage CA, whereas AV node ablation may be more appropriate in patients with advanced-stage CA.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy on Quality of Life Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is more effective than drug therapy in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but its incremental effect on long-term quality of life (QOL) is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more beneficial than conventional drug therapy for improving QOL in patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation vs drug therapy in 2204 symptomatic patients with AF older than 65 years or 65 years or younger with at least 1 risk factor for stroke. Patients were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016 from 126 centers in 10 countries. Follow-up ended in December 2017. Interventions: Pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablation procedures at the discretion of the investigators, for the catheter ablation group (n = 1108) and standard rhythm and/or rate-control drugs selected and managed by investigators for the drug therapy group (n = 1096). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified co-primary QOL end points at 12 months, including the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary score (range, 0-100; 0 indicates complete disability and 100 indicates no disability; patient-level clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score (range, 0-40; 0 indicates no symptoms and 40 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.6 points) and severity score (range, 0-30; 0 indicates no symptoms and 30 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.3 points). Results: Among 2204 randomized patients (median age, 68 years; 1385 patients [63%] were men, 946 [43%] had paroxysmal AF, and 1256 [57%] had persistent AF), the median follow-up was 48.5 months, and 1968 (89%) completed the trial. The mean AFEQT summary score was more favorable in the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (86.4 points vs 80.9 points) (adjusted difference, 5.3 points [95% CI, 3.7-6.9]; P < .001). The mean MAFSI frequency score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (6.4 points vs 8.1 points) (adjusted difference, -1.7 points [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2]; P < .001) and the mean MAFSI severity score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (5.0 points vs 6.5 points) (adjusted difference, -1.5 points [95% CI, -2.0 to -1.1]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, led to clinically important and significant improvements in quality of life at 12 months. These findings can help guide decisions regarding management of atrial fibrillation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Interventions: The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. Results: Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) Trial: Study Rationale and Design.

The Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA,NCT00911508)(1) trial is testing the hypothesis that the treatment strategy of percutaneous left atrial catheter ablation for the purpose of eliminating atrial fibrillation (AF) is superior to current state-of-the-art pharmacologic therapy. This international 140-center clinical trial was designed to randomize 2200 patients to a strategy of catheter ablation versus state-of-the-art rate or rhythm control drug therapy. Inclusion criteria include: 1) age> 65, or ≤65 with≥ 1 risk factor for stroke, 2) documented AF warranting treatment, and 3) eligibility for both catheter ablation and≥ 2 anti-arrhythmic or≥ 2 rate control drugs. Patients were followed every 3 to 6 months (median 4 years) and underwent repeat trans-telephonic monitoring, Holter monitoring, and CT/MR in a subgroup of patient studies to assess the impact of treatment on AF recurrence and atrial structure. With 1100 patients in each treatment arm, CABANA is projected to have 90% power for detecting a 30% relative reduction in the primary composite endpoint of total mortality, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary endpoints include total mortality; mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; a combination of mortality, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure or acute coronary artery events; cardiovascular death alone; and heart failure death, as well as AF recurrence, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. At a time when AF incidence is rising rapidly, CABANA will provide critical evidence with which to guide therapy and shape health care policy related to AF for years to come.

Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with increased rotor burden in patients undergoing focal impulse and rotor modification guided atrial fibrillation ablation.

Aims: To assess whether obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was associated with increased rotor burden among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods and results: We studied 33 consecutive patients who were scheduled for focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM) ablation at our institution to describe the mapping, ablation, and outcomes, among patients with and without OSA. Patients underwent biatrial FIRM mapping in AF with ablation of stable rotors in addition to conventional ablation lesion sets. Differences between groups were tested with student's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Twelve of the 33 (36%) patients had OSA and 8 (66%) used continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP). Obstructive sleep apnea patients had a higher body mass index (BMI) (33.6 vs. 28.8 kg/m2, P = 0.01) and were more commonly on beta blockers (67% vs. 29%, P = 0.03) but were otherwise similar regarding baseline characteristics, medication use, and prior AF treatments, including antiarrhythmic drugs and prior ablation. Focal impulse and rotor modulation mapping demonstrated increased rotor burden in the OSA patients (2.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.0, P =0.03). The increased rotor burden was more evident in the right atrium (RA) (1.0 ± 0.7 vs. 0.5 ± 0.7, P =0.04 compared with left atrium (1.7 ± 0.8 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7, P = 0.15). There was no correlation between BMI and total number of rotors (r = 0.0961, P = 0.59). Among the population of patients with OSA, CPAP therapy was associated with a lower number of RA rotors (0.8 ± 0.7 vs. 1.5 ± 0.6, P = 0.05) but no significant difference in overall rotors (P = 0.33). Conclusion: Obstructive sleep apnea patients demonstrate increased rotor prevalence, driven predominantly by an increase in RA rotors. CPAP therapy was associated with fewer RA rotors.

Feasibility of near real-time lesion assessment during radiofrequency catheter ablation in humans using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging.

BACKGROUND: Visual confirmation of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) lesions during clinical cardiac ablation procedures could improve procedure efficacy, safety, and efficiency. It was previously shown that acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging can identify RFA lesions in vitro and in vivo in an animal model. This is the "first-in-human" feasibility demonstration of intracardiac ARFI imaging of RFA lesions in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial flutter (AFL) or atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients scheduled for right atrial (RA) ablation for AFL or left atrial (LA) ablation for drug refractory AF were eligible for imaging. Diastole-gated intracardiac ARFI images were acquired using one of two equipment configurations: (1) a Siemens ACUSON S2000™ ultrasound scanner and 8/10Fr AcuNav™ ultrasound catheter, or (2) a CARTO 3™ integrated Siemens SC2000™ and 10Fr SoundStar™ ultrasound catheter. A total of 11 patients (AFL = 3; AF = 8) were imaged. ARFI images were acquired of ablation target regions, including the RA cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI), and the LA roof, pulmonary vein ostia, posterior wall, posterior mitral valve annulus, and the ridge between the pulmonary vein and LA appendage. ARFI images revealed increased relative myocardial stiffness at ablation catheter contact sites after RFA and at anatomical mapping-tagged RFA treatment sites. CONCLUSIONS: ARFI images from a pilot group of patients undergoing catheter ablation for AFL and AF demonstrate the ability of this technique to identify intra-procedure RFA lesion formation. The results encourage further refinement of ARFI imaging clinical tools and continued investigation in larger clinical trials.

Contrast in intracardiac acoustic radiation force impulse images of radiofrequency ablation lesions.

We have previously shown that intracardiac acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging visualizes tissue stiffness changes caused by radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The objectives of this in vivo study were to (1) quantify measured ARFI-induced displacements in RFA lesion and unablated myocardium and (2) calculate the lesion contrast (C) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in two-dimensional ARFI and conventional intracardiac echo images. In eight canine subjects, an ARFI imaging-electroanatomical mapping system was used to map right atrial ablation lesion sites and guide the acquisition of ARFI images at these sites before and after ablation. Readers of the ARFI images identified lesion sites with high sensitivity (90.2%) and specificity (94.3%) and the average measured ARFI-induced displacements were higher at unablated sites (11.23 ± 1.71 µm) than at ablated sites (6.06 ± 0.94 µm). The average lesion C (0.29 ± 0.33) and CNR (1.83 ± 1.75) were significantly higher for ARFI images than for spatially registered conventional B-mode images (C = -0.03 ± 0.28, CNR = 0.74 ± 0.68).

Repeat catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established therapy that reduces AF burden, improves quality of life, and reduces the risks of cardiovascular outcomes. Although there are clear guidelines for the application of de novo catheter ablation, there is less evidence to guide recommendations for repeat catheter ablation in patients who experience recurrent AF. In this review, we examine the rationale for repeat ablation, mechanisms of recurrence, patient selection, optimal timing, and procedural strategies. We discuss additional important considerations, including treatment of comorbidities and risk factors, risk of complications, and effectiveness. Mechanisms of recurrent AF are often due to non-pulmonary vein (non-PV) triggers; however, there is insufficient evidence supporting the routine use of empiric lesion sets during repeat ablation. The emergence of pulsed field ablation may alter the safety and effectiveness of de novo and repeat ablation. Extrapolation of data from randomized trials of de novo ablation does not optimally inform efficacy in cases of redo ablation. Additional large, randomized controlled trials are needed to address important clinical questions regarding procedural strategies and timing of repeat ablation.

Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinically detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a significant increase in mortality and other adverse cardiovascular events. Since the advent of effective methods for AF rhythm control, investigators have attempted to determine how much these adverse prognostic AF effects could be mitigated by the restoration of sinus rhythm (SR) and whether the method used mattered. METHODS: The CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2204 AF patients to ablation versus drug therapy, of which 1240 patients were monitored in follow-up using the CABANA ECG rhythm monitoring system. To assess the prognostic benefits of SR, we performed a prespecified analysis using Cox survival modeling with heart rhythm as a time-dependent variable and randomized treatment group as a stratification factor. RESULTS: In the 1240 patient study cohort, 883 (71.2%) had documented AF at some point during their postblanking follow-up. Among the 883 patients, 671 (76.0%) experienced AF within the first year of postblanking follow-up, and 212 (24.0%) experienced their first AF after ≥1 year of postblanking follow-up. The primary CABANA end point (death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest) occurred in 95 (10.8%) of the 883 patients with documented AF and in 29 (8.1%) of the 357 patients with no AF recorded during follow-up. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, the presence of SR (compared with non-SR) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]; P=0.006; independent of treatment strategy [ablation versus drugs]). Corresponding results for all-cause mortality were adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-1.01]; P=0.053). CONCLUSIONS: In patients in the CABANA trial with detailed long-term rhythm follow-up, increased time in SR was associated with a clinically consequential decrease in mortality and other adverse prognostic events. The predictive value of SR was independent of the therapeutic approach responsible for reducing the burden of detectable AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00911508.