Temporal Trends and Lesion Sets for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis and Meta-Regression.
atrial fibrillation
meta-analysis
randomized controlled trials
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:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
medline:
21
9
2023
pubmed:
17
8
2023
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. We performed meta-regression and trial sequential analysis. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37589197
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.123.011861
pmc: PMC10510845
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e011861Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : FS/CRTF/21/24183
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : ACF-2019-21-001
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RG/F/22/110078
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RE/18/4/34215
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : FS/ICRF/22/26039
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Europace. 2019 Aug 01;21(8):1176-1184
pubmed: 31071213
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Aug;5(8):968-976
pubmed: 31439299
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28;384(4):316-324
pubmed: 33197158
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Aug;31(8):1908-1919
pubmed: 32449825
JAMA. 2020 Oct 27;324(16):1620-1628
pubmed: 33107945
Circulation. 2000 Nov 21;102(21):2619-28
pubmed: 11085966
J Clin Nurs. 2003 Jan;12(1):77-84
pubmed: 12519253
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;31(7):1857-1860
pubmed: 31778259
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec;15(12):1746-1753
pubmed: 30502771
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;68(18):1929-1940
pubmed: 27788847
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;76(9):1068-1080
pubmed: 32854842
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Mar;13(3):e008237
pubmed: 32064900
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 01;378(5):417-427
pubmed: 29385358
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Jun;110(6):775-788
pubmed: 33089361
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 5;74(18):2254-2264
pubmed: 31672181
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 12;6(8):e011890
pubmed: 27519923
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015 Oct;8(5):1017-29
pubmed: 26082515
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Circ J. 2019 Jan 25;83(2):304-312
pubmed: 30626763
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Sep;32(9):2567-2576
pubmed: 34258794
Front Physiol. 2020 Aug 28;11:987
pubmed: 33013435
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2021 Aug;74(4):363-365
pubmed: 33333708
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 May;8(5):605-618
pubmed: 35589173
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28;384(4):305-315
pubmed: 33197159
J Clin Med. 2021 Jul 15;10(14):
pubmed: 34300301
Am Heart J. 2022 Jan;243:210-220
pubmed: 34619143
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 22;66(24):2743-2752
pubmed: 26700836
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 20;11(10):e0164989
pubmed: 27764185
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 May;8(5):582-592
pubmed: 35589170
Europace. 2018 Nov 1;20(FI_3):f366-f376
pubmed: 29267853
J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):45-57; discussion 59-60
pubmed: 7853047
N Engl J Med. 1998 Sep 3;339(10):659-66
pubmed: 9725923
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Jun;3(3):243-8
pubmed: 20339034
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 6;17(1):39
pubmed: 28264661