Atrial fibrillation symptom reduction and improved quality of life following the hybrid convergent procedure: a CONVERGE trial subanalysis.

Background: CONVERGE was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety of Hybrid Atrial Fibrillation Convergent (HC) and compared its effectiveness to endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) and longstanding PersAF (LSPAF). In 2020, we reported that CONVERGE met its primary safety and effectiveness endpoints. The primary objective of the present study is to report CONVERGE trial results for quality of life (QOL) and Class I/III anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) utilization following HC. Methods: Eligible patients had drug-refractory symptomatic PersAF or LSPAF and a left atrium diameter ≤6.0 cm. Enrolled patients were randomized 2:1 to receive HC or CA. Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale (AFSS) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were assessed at baseline and 12 months; statistical comparison was performed using paired t-tests. AAD utilization at baseline through 12 and 18 months post-procedure was evaluated; statistical comparison was performed using McNemar's tests. Results: A total of 153 patients were treated with either HC (n=102) or CA (n=51). Of the 102 HC patients, 38 had LSPAF. AFSS and SF-36 Mental and Physical Component scores were significantly improved at 12 months versus baseline with HC overall and for the subset of LSPAF patients treated with either HC or CA. The proportion of HC patients (n=102) who used Class I /III AADs at 12 and 18 months was significantly less (33.3% and 36.3%, respectively) than baseline (84.3%; P<0.001). In LSPAF patients who underwent HC (n=38), AADs use was 29.0% through 18 months follow-up versus 71.1% at baseline (P<0.001). Conclusions: HC reduced AF symptoms, significantly improved QOL, and reduced AAD use in patients with PersAF and LSPAF. ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier: NCT01984346.

Hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the CONVERGE Trial.

Background: Favorable clinical outcomes are difficult to achieve in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) with catheter ablation (CA). The CONVERGE (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent Atrial FIbrillation) trial evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid convergent (HC) ablation vs endocardial CA. Objective: The study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of HC vs CA in the LSPAF subgroup from the CONVERGE trial. Methods: The CONVERGE trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled 153 patients at 27 sites. A post hoc analysis was performed on LSPAF patients. The primary effectiveness was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off new or increased dose of previously failed or intolerant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) through 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was major adverse event incidence through 30 days with HC. Key secondary effectiveness measures included (1) percent of patients achieving ≥90% AF burden reduction vs baseline and (2) AF freedom. Results: Sixty-five patients (42.5% of total enrollment) had LSPAF; 38 in HC and 27 in CA. Primary effectiveness was 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.7%-80.9%) with HC vs 37.0% (95% CI 5.1%-52.4%) with CA (P = .022). Through 18 months, these rates were 60.5% (95% CI 50.0%-76.1%) with HC vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%-42.5%) with CA (P = .006). Secondary effectiveness rates were higher than CA with HC at 12 and 18 months. Freedom from atrial arrhythmias off AADs was 52.6% (95% CI 36.8%-68.5%) and 47.4% (95% CI 31.5%-63.2%) with HC at 12 and 18 months vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%-42.5%) and 22.2% (95% CI 6.5%-37.9%) with CA, respectively (12 months: P = .031; 18 months: P = .038). Three (7.9%) major adverse events occurred within 30 days of HC. Conclusion: Post hoc analysis demonstrated effectiveness and acceptable safety of HC compared with CA in LSPAF.

Hybrid Convergent Procedure for the Treatment of Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results of CONVERGE Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The limited effectiveness of endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment led to the development of a minimally invasive epicardial/endocardial ablation approach (Hybrid Convergent) to achieve a more comprehensive lesion set with durable transmural lesions. The multicenter randomized controlled CONVERGE trial (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF) evaluated the safety of Hybrid Convergent and compared its effectiveness to CA for persistent and long-standing persistent AF treatment. METHODS: One-hundred fifty-three patients were randomized 2:1 to Hybrid Convergent versus CA. Primary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia absent new/increased dosage of previously failed/intolerant class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs through 12 months. Primary safety was major adverse events through 30 days. CONVERGE permitted left atrium size up to 6 cm and imposed no limits on AF duration, making it the only ablation trial to substantially include long-standing persistent-AF, that is, 42% patients with long-standing persistent-AF. RESULTS: Of 149 evaluable patients at 12 months, primary effectiveness was achieved in 67.7% (67/99) patients with Hybrid Convergent and 50.0% (25/50) with CA (P=0.036) on/off previously failed antiarrhythmic drugs and in 53.5% (53/99) versus 32.0% (16/50; P=0.0128) respectively off antiarrhythmic drugs. At 18 months using 7-day Holter, 74.0% (53/72) Hybrid Convergent and 55% (23/42) CA patients experienced ≥90% AF burden reduction. A total of 2.9% (3/102) patients had primary safety events within 7 days, and 4.9% (5/102) between 8 and 30 days postprocedure. No deaths, cardiac perforations, or atrioesophageal fistulas occurred. All but one primary safety event resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The Hybrid Convergent procedure has superior effectiveness compared to the CA for the treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01984346.

Prospective US investigational device exemption trial of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: One-year outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a prospective, single-arm clinical trial approved under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption to assess safety and efficacy of Perceval, a sutureless bovine pericardial aortic valve representing the initial US experience. METHODS: From June 2013 to January 2015, 300 patients (mean age 76.7 ± 7.7 years, 54.3% men, 37.3% ≥80 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 2.8%), underwent Perceval valve implantation at 18 centers across the United States. Twenty patients (6.7%) had a bicuspid aortic valve and 5 (1.7%) patients had previous aortic valve replacement. A minimally invasive approach was used in 80 (26.7%) and concomitant procedures were performed in 113 (37.8%) patients. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-nine patients (96.3%) were successfully implanted. Operative mortality (≤30 days) was 1.3% (n = 4) (observed to expected ratio of 0.40). One-year results included all-cause mortality in 5.2% (n = 15), stroke in 1% (n = 3), and endocarditis in 1.7% (n = 5). New permanent periprocedural pacemaker rate was 10.7% (n = 30/281); 2.5% (n = 7/281) resulted from third-degree atrioventricular block. One-year valve-related reoperation was 2.1% (n = 6). At 1-year follow-up, 98% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I/II, left ventricular mass index decreased from 103.5 ± 30.1 g/m2 at discharge to 95.8 ± 27.1 g/m2 (P = .001), and 3 (1.3%) moderate paravalvular leaks were identified. Health-related quality of life score increased from 62.7 ± 21.8 before surgery to 85.5 ± 17.8 at 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the safety and effectiveness of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement in study patients with lower mortality than expected from a risk prediction model. Persistent hemodynamic benefit and improvement in quality of life at 1 year support the importance of this device in the management of aortic valve disease.