Kuniss, Malte

AbstractIntroductionCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently studied in randomized trials, observational and registry studies. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of future clinical studies on catheter ablation of AF, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.BackgroundStudies on catheter ablation of AF may benefit from well‐described definitions of endpoints and consistent methodology and documentation of outcomes related to efficacy, safety and cost‐effectiveness. The availably of new, innovative technologies warrants further consideration about their application and impact on study design and the choice of endpoints. Moreover, recent insights gained from AF ablation studies suggest a reconsideration of some methodological aspects.MethodsA panel of clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF and designing and conducting clinical studies developed an expert opinion on the design and endpoints for studies on catheter ablation of AF. Discussions within the expert panel with the aim to reach consensus on predefined topics were based on outcomes reported in the literature and experiences from recent clinical trials.ResultsA comprehensive set of recommendations is presented. Key elements include the documentation of clinical AF, medication during the study, repeated ablations and their effect on endpoint assessments, postablation blanking and the choice of rhythm‐related and other endpoints.ConclusionThis expert opinion provides guidance and promotes consistency regarding design of AF catheter ablation studies and identified aspects requiring further research to optimize study design and methodology.CONDENSED ABSTRACTRecent insights from studies on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the availability of new innovative technologies warrant reconsideration of methodological aspects related to study design and the choice and assessment of endpoints. This expert opinion, developed by clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF provides a comprehensive set of recommendations related to these methodological aspects. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of clinical studies, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.

AbstractAimsTreatment guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suggest that patients should be managed with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) before undergoing catheter ablation (CA). This study evaluated whether pulmonary vein isolation employing cryoballoon CA is superior to AAD therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence in rhythm control naive patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).Methods and resultsA total of 218 treatment naive patients with symptomatic PAF were randomized (1 : 1) to cryoballoon CA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III) and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was ≥1 episode of recurrent AA (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) >30 s after a prespecified 90-day blanking period. Secondary endpoints included the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) and recurrence of symptomatic palpitations (evaluated via patient diaries). Freedom from AA was achieved in 82.2% of subjects in the cryoballoon arm and 67.6% of subjects in the AAD arm (HR = 0.48, P = 0.01). There were no group differences in the time-to-first (HR = 0.76, P = 0.28) or overall incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.79, P = 0.28] of SAEs. The incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower in the cryoballoon (7.61 days/year) compared with the AAD arm (18.96 days/year; IRR = 0.40, P < 0.001).ConclusionsCryoballoon CA was superior to AAD therapy, significantly reducing AA recurrence in treatment naive patients with PAF. Additionally, cryoballoon CA was associated with lower symptom recurrence and a similar rate of SAEs compared with AAD therapy.