1. Hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the CONVERGE Trial
- Author
-
David B. DeLurgio, MD, Christopher Blauth, MD, Michael E. Halkos, MD, Karl J. Crossen, MD, David Talton, MD, Saumil R. Oza, MD, Anthony R. Magnano, MD, Mark A. Mostovych, MD, Sreedhar Billakanty, MD, Steven Duff, MD, Christopher Stees, DO, Jason Sperling, MD, Syed Ahsan, MD, John Yap, MD, Christian Shults, MD, David Pederson, MD, James Garrison, MD, Paul Tabereaux, MD, David M. Gilligan, MD, Graham Bundy, MD, Otto Costantini, MD, Eric Espinal, MD, Angelo La Pietra, MD, Felix Yang, MD, Yisachar Greenberg, MD, Israel Jacobowitz, MD, and Jaswinder Gill, MD
- Subjects
Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation ,Hybrid ablation ,Epicardial ,Endocardial ablation ,Antiarrhythmic drug ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF