Optimum lesion set and predictors of outcome in persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: a meta-regression analysis.

AIMS: Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed by many techniques with varying success rates. This may be due to ablation techniques, patient demographics, comorbidities, and trial design. We conducted a meta-regression of studies of PsAF ablation to elucidate the factors affecting atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. A meta-regression was performed. Fifty-eight studies (6767 patients) were included. Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation reduced freedom from AF by 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -15 to -2.3, P = 0.009). Left atrial appendage [LAA isolation (three study arms)] increased freedom from AF by 39.5% (95% CI 9.1-78.4, P = 0.008). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) (eight study arms) increased freedom from AF by 19.4% (95% CI 3.3-38.1, P = 0.017). Linear ablation or ganglionated plexi ablation resulted in no significant effect on freedom from AF. More extensive ablation increased intraprocedural AF termination; however, intraprocedural AF termination was not associated with improved outcomes. Increased left atrial diameter was associated with a reduction in freedom from AF by 4% (95% CI -6.8% to -1.1%, P = 0.007) for every 1 mm increase in diameter. CONCLUSION: Linear ablation, PWI, and CFAE ablation improves intraprocedural AF termination, but such termination does not predict better long-term outcomes. Study arms including PWI or LAA isolation in the lesion set were associated with improved outcomes in terms of freedom from AF; however, further randomized trials are required before these can be routinely recommended. Left atrial size is the most important marker of AF chronicity influencing outcomes.

Management of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a disease characterised by fibrofatty replacement of the ventricular myocardium due to specific mutations, leading to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Treating this condition can be challenging due to progressive fibrosis, phenotypic variations and small patient cohorts limiting the feasibility of conducting meaningful clinical trials. Although widely used, the evidence base for anti-arrhythmic drugs is limited. Beta-blockers are theoretically sound, yet their efficacy in reducing arrhythmic risk is not robust. Additionally, the impact of sotalol and amiodarone is inconsistent with studies reporting contradictory results. Emerging evidence suggests that combining flecainide and bisoprolol may be efficacious.Radiofrequency ablation has shown some potential in disrupting ventricular tachycardia circuits, with combined endo and epicardial ablation yielding better results which could be considered at the index procedure. In addition, stereotactic radiotherapy may be a future option that can decrease arrhythmias beyond simple scar formation by altering levels of Nav1.5 channels, Connexin 43 and Wnt signalling, potentially modifying myocardial fibrosis.Future therapies, such as adenoviruses and GSk3b modulation, are still in early-stage research. While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is a key intervention for reducing arrhythmic death, the risks of inappropriate shocks and device complications must be carefully considered.

Temporal Trends and Lesion Sets for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis and Meta-Regression.

BACKGROUND: Ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed for over 20 years, although success rates have remained modest. Several adjunctive lesion sets have been studied but none have become standard of practice. We sought to describe how the efficacy of ablation for PsAF has evolved in this time period with a focus on the effect of adjunctive ablation strategies. METHODS: Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. We performed meta-regression and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: A total of 99 studies (15 424 patients) were included. Ablation for PsAF achieved the primary outcome (freedom of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia rate at 12 months follow-up) in 48.2% (5% CI, 44.0-52.3). Meta-regression showed freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months has improved over time, while procedure time and fluoroscopy time have significantly reduced. Through the use of cumulative meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis, we show that some ablation strategies may initially seem promising, but after several randomized controlled trials may be found to be ineffective. Trial sequential analysis showed that complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation is ineffective and further study of this treatment would be futile, while posterior wall isolation currently does not have sufficient evidence for routine use in PsAF ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall success rates from PsAF ablation and procedure/fluoroscopy times have improved over time. However, no adjunctive lesion set, in addition to pulmonary vein isolation, has been conclusively demonstrated to be beneficial. Through the use of trial sequential analysis, we highlight the importance of adequately powered randomized controlled trials, to avoid reaching premature conclusions, before widespread adoption of novel therapies.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation With Pulmonary Vein Isolation Versus Without.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis examined the ability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to prevent atrial fibrillation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the patients not receiving PVI nevertheless underwent a procedure. BACKGROUND: PVI is a commonly used procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and its efficacy has usually been judged against therapy with anti-arrhythmic drugs in open-label trials. There have been several RCTs of AF ablation in which both arms received an ablation, but the difference between the treatment arms was inclusion or omission of PVI. These trials of an ablation strategy with PVI versus an ablation strategy without PVI may provide a more rigorous method for evaluating the efficacy of PVI. METHODS: Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing ablation including PVI with ablation excluding PVI. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia at 12 months. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator. RESULTS: Overall, 6 studies (n = 610) met inclusion criteria. AF recurrence was significantly lower with an ablation including PVI than an ablation without PVI (RR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.89; p = 0.0147; I2 = 79.7%). Neither the type of AF (p = 0.48) nor the type of non-PVI ablation (p = 0.21) was a significant moderator of the effect size. In 3 trials the non-PVI ablation procedure was performed in both arms, whereas PVI was performed in only 1 arm. In these studies, AF recurrence was significantly lower when PVI was included (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.73; p = 0.007, I2 78%). CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs where both arms received an ablation, and therefore an expectation amongst patients and doctors of benefit, being randomized to PVI had a striking effect, reducing AF recurrence by a half.

Attribution bias underlying burns-induced anxiety symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Burn injuries are a debilitating cause of morbidity and mortality associated with the long-term impact of psychological factors on quality of life. Accurate assessment of the differential impact of burn sequelae and anxiety is often complicated by the overlap between psychological and somatic symptoms in burns patients. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is one validated psychometric tool for anxiety assessment. The primary objective of this study is to investigate whether utilising the BAI as a tool to assess for anxiety in burns patients is biased due to the confounding of symptoms of anxiety with the physical sequelae of a burn injury. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study. The study was conducted in accordance with the UK Good Clinical Practice guidelines (CAPP reference number 506). Patients were recruited over a three-month period from November 2016 to February 2017 and were offered a modified BAI questionnaire to complete. Patients were asked to indicate to what degree they attributed each symptom to their physical injury or their psychological state on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: 50 patients, comprising 33 females (66%) and 17 males (34%), participated in the study with a median age of 33.5 years (range: 20-88). Date of injury spanned May 1991 to January 2017. Percentage of the total body surface area (% TBSA) affected by burn ranged from 1 to 86%. Patients attributed eight of the 21 self-report items within the BAI as being more physical than psychological in origin. The results reveal a statistical significant difference in patient VAS scores between physical (mean: 34.16, 95% CI: 29.04-39.28) and psychological (mean: 61.2, 95% CI: 56.33-66.17) BAI items, with p<0.0001. In addition, patients with a facial burn injury were more likely to report 'face flushed' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.11, p<0.05) and patients with a hand burn injury were more likely to report 'hands trembling' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.52, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study found preliminary evidence suggesting that the BAI may, in part, represent misattributed symptoms of cutaneous injury from burns. However, whilst our findings suggest an attribution bias, there is not enough evidence from this data to comment on whether its use should be restricted in burns patients. Further research is needed to formally quantify convergent and divergent validity through structured interviews. In addition, further research using other self-report tools of anxiety in burns patients would be useful to corroborate the prospect of biased and confounded anxiety scores.