Arrhythmia Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Atherosclerotic Diseases of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, China.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Nov 4;7(11):e2445084. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45084.
The optimal strategy of combining left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with catheter ablation (CA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) during a single procedure remains unclear.
To determine the effects of ablation-first vs occlusion-first strategies on long-term clinical outcomes among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing a combined LAAO and CA procedure.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The prospective, multicenter COMBINATION randomized clinical trial was conducted in 14 high-volume centers in China. Enrollment of patients with nonvalvular AF referred for the combined procedure began on July 24, 2020, and concluded on January 20, 2022.
Patients were randomly assigned to either the ablation-first group or the occlusion-first group. Outcomes of LAAO using an occlusion device and CA using a contact force-sensing catheter following different combination strategies during long-term follow-up were evaluated.
The primary end point was a composite of thromboembolic events including stroke or transient ischemic attack, device-related thrombus (DRT), clinically relevant bleeding, and cardiovascular rehospitalization or death. Freedom from AF or atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs, at both 1 year and long-term follow-up, was also evaluated.
Of the 202 patients enrolled, 194 (96.0%) completed the trial (97 in the ablation-first group and 97 in the occlusion-first group). The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 67.3 (9.2) years, and 110 patients (56.7%) were male. All procedures achieved acute successful LAAO and restoration of sinus rhythm, with similar incidences of periprocedural complications. Compared with the ablation-first group, the occlusion-first group exhibited significantly higher event-free survival of the primary end point (83.5% vs 71.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.29-0.95]; log-rank P = .04) during the median 2.5 (IQR, 2.3-2.8) years of follow-up. Subgroup analysis indicated that male patients and those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (a composite of factors associated with stroke risk; higher scores indicate higher risk) were at lower risk of thromboembolic events. Rates of long-term freedom from AF (77.3% vs 63.5%; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34-0.97]; log-rank P = .04) and from ATA (70.1% vs 55.7%; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.39-0.99]; log-rank P = .04) were higher in the occlusion-first group vs the ablation-first group. Additionally, a higher incidence of chronic peridevice leak (15 [15.5%] vs 5 [5.2%]; P = .03) and DRT (8 [8.2%] vs 1 [1.0%]; P = .04) was observed in the ablation-first group vs the occlusion-first group.
In this randomized clinical trial, the occlusion-first approach was superior due to its higher event-free survival of the primary end point and long-term freedom from ATA. These findings suggest that the occlusion-first approach should be recommended for combined procedures with plug-like device implantation.
Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000031486.
在单次手术中,对于同时接受左心耳封堵 (LAAO) 和导管消融 (CA) 的房颤患者,哪种策略是将 LAAO 与 CA 联合应用的最佳策略尚不清楚。
确定消融优先与封堵优先策略对接受 LAAO 和 CA 联合治疗的房颤患者长期临床结局的影响。
设计、地点和参与者:这项前瞻性、多中心 COMBINATION 随机临床试验在中国 14 个大容量中心进行。非瓣膜性房颤患者于 2020 年 7 月 24 日开始入组,并于 2022 年 1 月 20 日结束。
患者被随机分配到消融优先组或封堵优先组。评估在长期随访中使用不同联合策略时,使用封堵装置进行 LAAO 和使用接触力感应导管进行 CA 的结果。
主要终点是包括卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作、设备相关血栓形成 (DRT)、临床相关出血、心血管再入院或死亡在内的血栓栓塞事件的复合终点。还评估了 1 年和长期随访时无抗心律失常药物的单次手术后房颤或房性心动过速 (ATA)的无复发情况。
共纳入 202 例患者,其中 194 例(96.0%)完成了试验(消融优先组 97 例,封堵优先组 97 例)。队列的平均(SD)年龄为 67.3±9.2 岁,110 例(56.7%)为男性。所有手术均实现了左心耳的急性成功封堵和窦性节律的恢复,围手术期并发症发生率相似。与消融优先组相比,封堵优先组的主要终点事件无复发生存率显著更高(83.5%比 71.1%;风险比 [HR],0.53[95%CI,0.29-0.95];对数秩检验 P=0.04),中位随访时间为 2.5 年(IQR,2.3-2.8 年)。亚组分析表明,男性患者和 CHA2DS2-VASc 评分较高(与卒中风险相关的因素的综合评分;评分越高表示风险越高)的患者发生血栓栓塞事件的风险较低。封堵优先组的长期房颤无复发率(77.3%比 63.5%;HR,0.58[95%CI,0.34-0.97];对数秩检验 P=0.04)和房性心动过速无复发率(70.1%比 55.7%;HR,0.62[95%CI,0.39-0.99];对数秩检验 P=0.04)也高于消融优先组。此外,在消融优先组中观察到慢性心包积气漏(15[15.5%]比 5[5.2%];P=0.03)和 DRT(8[8.2%]比 1[1.0%];P=0.04)的发生率更高。
在这项随机临床试验中,封堵优先方法由于其主要终点事件无复发生存率和长期 ATA 无复发率更高而具有优势。这些发现表明,在联合应用封堵装置植入的手术中,应推荐封堵优先方法。
中国临床试验注册中心标识符:ChiCTR2000031486。