Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Versus Catheter Ablation for Paroxysmal and Early Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

<bold>Background: </bold>Current guidelines recommend both percutaneous catheter ablation (CA) and surgical ablation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, with different levels of evidence. No direct comparison has been made between minimally invasive thoracoscopic pulmonary vein isolation with left atrial appendage ligation (surgical MIPI) versus percutaneous CA comprising of pulmonary vein isolation as primary treatment of atrial fibrillation. We, therefore, conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of these 2 treatment modalities.<bold>Methods: </bold>Eighty patients were enrolled in the study and underwent implantable loop recorder implantation. Twenty-eight patients did not reach randomization criteria. A total of 52 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or early persistent atrial fibrillation were randomized, 26 to CA and 26 to surgical MIPI. The primary end point was defined as freedom of atrial tachyarrhythmias, without the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. The safety end point was freedom of complications.<bold>Results: </bold>Median age was 57 years (range, 37-75), and 78% were men. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was present in 74%. Follow-up duration was ≥2 years in all patients. CA was noninferior to MIPI in terms of single-procedure arrhythmia-free survival after 2 years of follow-up (56.0% versus 29.2%; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.26-1.20; log-rank P=0.059). Procedure-related major adverse events occurred significantly more often in MIPI than CA (20.8% versus 0%; P=0.029).<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Percutaneous pulmonary vein isolation was noninferior to MIPI in terms of efficacy and resulted in less complications.<bold>Clinical Trial Registration: </bold>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00703157. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]