From Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland (O.M.W., M.N., M.S., S.E.N.), and Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus (J.T.); CHI Franciscan, Tacoma, WA (G.D.); Southcoast Health System, Fall River, MA (N.S.); Iowa Heart Center, West Des Moines (R.H.); MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington, DC (S.D.); BayCare Medical Group, Tampa, FL (K.M.); Providence Saint Vincent, Portland, OR (B.H.); Spectrum Health Heart and Vascular, Grand Rapids, MI (A.G.); Grandview Medical Center, Birmingham, AL (G.M.); and Medtronic, Mounds View, MN (J.C., R.E.K.).
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28;384(4):316-324. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029554. Epub 2020 Nov 16.
In patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that has not responded to medication, catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drug therapy for maintaining sinus rhythm. However, the safety and efficacy of cryoballoon ablation as initial first-line therapy have not been established.
We performed a multicenter trial in which patients 18 to 80 years of age who had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation for which they had not previously received rhythm-control therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs (class I or III agents) or pulmonary vein isolation with a cryoballoon. Arrhythmia monitoring included 12-lead electrocardiography conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; patient-activated telephone monitoring conducted weekly and when symptoms were present during months 3 through 12; and 24-hour ambulatory monitoring conducted at 6 and 12 months. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success (defined as freedom from initial failure of the procedure or atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure or drug dose adjustment, evaluated in a Kaplan-Meier analysis). The primary safety end point was assessed in the ablation group only and was a composite of several procedure-related and cryoballoon system-related serious adverse events.
Of the 203 participants who underwent randomization and received treatment, 104 underwent ablation, and 99 initially received drug therapy. In the ablation group, initial success of the procedure was achieved in 97% of patients. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with treatment success at 12 months was 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 82.0) in the ablation group and 45.0% (95% CI, 34.6 to 54.7) in the drug-therapy group (P<0.001 by log-rank test). Two primary safety end-point events occurred in the ablation group (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with an event within 12 months, 1.9%; 95% CI, 0.5 to 7.5).
Cryoballoon ablation as initial therapy was superior to drug therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Serious procedure-related adverse events were uncommon. (Supported by Medtronic; STOP AF First ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03118518.).
在药物治疗无效的症状性阵发性心房颤动患者中,导管消融术维持窦性心律的效果优于抗心律失常药物治疗。然而,尚未确定冷冻球囊消融作为初始一线治疗的安全性和有效性。
我们进行了一项多中心试验,将年龄在 18 至 80 岁之间、此前未接受节律控制治疗的阵发性心房颤动患者随机(1:1)分为接受抗心律失常药物(I 类或 III 类药物)治疗或冷冻球囊肺静脉隔离治疗。心律失常监测包括基线时和 1、3、6 和 12 个月时进行的 12 导联心电图;在第 3 至 12 个月期间出现症状时进行每周一次的患者激活电话监测;以及在第 6 和 12 个月时进行 24 小时动态监测。主要疗效终点是治疗成功(定义为在 90 天空白期内无初始手术失败或心房颤动复发,允许从手术或药物剂量调整中恢复,通过 Kaplan-Meier 分析评估)。主要安全性终点仅在消融组中评估,是几个与手术相关和与冷冻球囊系统相关的严重不良事件的综合指标。
在 203 名接受随机分组和治疗的参与者中,有 104 名接受了消融治疗,99 名最初接受了药物治疗。在消融组中,97%的患者初始手术成功。在 12 个月时,接受消融治疗的患者治疗成功率的 Kaplan-Meier 估计值为 74.6%(95%置信区间[CI],65.0 至 82.0),而接受药物治疗的患者为 45.0%(95%CI,34.6 至 54.7)(对数秩检验,P<0.001)。在消融组中发生了 2 例主要安全性终点事件(在 12 个月内发生事件的患者的 Kaplan-Meier 估计百分比,1.9%;95%CI,0.5 至 7.5)。
冷冻球囊消融作为初始治疗,在预防阵发性心房颤动患者的心房颤动复发方面优于药物治疗。严重的与手术相关的不良事件并不常见。(由美敦力公司提供支持;STOP AF First 临床试验.gov 编号,NCT03118518.)。