Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial.
Action Potentials
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
/ adverse effects
Atrial Fibrillation
/ complications
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
/ adverse effects
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices
Catheter Ablation
/ adverse effects
Defibrillators, Implantable
Early Termination of Clinical Trials
Electric Countershock
/ adverse effects
Europe
Female
Heart Failure
/ complications
Heart Rate
Humans
Male
Medical Futility
Middle Aged
Pulmonary Veins
/ physiopathology
Recovery of Function
Stroke Volume
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
Young Adult
atrial fibrillation
catheter ablation
defibrillators
heart failure
randomized controlled trial
Journal
Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology
ISSN: 1941-3084
Titre abrégé: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101474365
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
entrez:
26
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
9
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%; The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial.
METHODS
Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility.
RESULTS
Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%;
CONCLUSIONS
The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31760819
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00652522']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM