Introduction
While catheter ablation (CA) is an established treatment for symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), convergent epicardial and endocardial ablation procedure (CVP) has been primarily used to treat persistent AF. The aim of this randomized study was to compare treatment efficacy of CA and CVP in paroxysmal AF patients by monitoring AF, atrial tachycardia (AT) and atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence with Implantable Loop Recorder (ILR).
Methods and results
Fifty patients (74 % male) with history of paroxysmal AF were randomized between CA and CVP. Outcomes were determined by ILRs; every episode of AF/AT/AFL lasting 6 minutes or more was defined as a recurrence. AF burden (AFB) and required AF re-interventions (cardio-versions and repeat ablations) were quantified after a 3-month blanking period.
Total procedural (266±44 vs 242±39 minutes) and ablation duration (52±10 vs 48±12 minutes) was similar in both groups. Recurrence of AF/AT/AFL was more likely in the CA group compared to the CVP group (OR 3.78 (95 % CI (1.17, 12.19), p = 0.048)). During the follow-up period (mean 30.5±6.9 months), higher AF burden and more re-interventions for recurrent AF were recorded in the CA group. There were more peri-procedural complications in the CVP group (12.5 %) compared to the CA group (0 %).
Conclusions
Treatment of paroxysmal AF with CVP showed less arrhythmia recurrence compared to CA. In addition, patients after CVP had fewer re-interventions and lower AF burden, but more periprocedural complications.
|