The purpose of this study is to compare 2 invasive strategies for Atrial Fibrillation treatment, Endocardial catheter ablation isolation of the Pulmonary veins versus minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical epicardial isolation. Both strategies are in use for several years now, and have been reported as a successful strategy with success rates of 60-90%. However, it is not known which technique is preferable in a given patient population in terms of efficacy to cure AF, safety, or patient discomfort. Therefore, in the present trial a randomized study is proposed to provide more insight into the relative merits of both techniques
Atrial Fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, affecting millions of people around the world. It is a large burden on health care resources and may even lead to a shorter life expectancy. Drug treatment has been found insufficient and sometimes even hazardous to the pt. Traditionally, there was only one invasive approach available, being MAZE 3 procedure by means of full open chest cardiac surgery. This was a very invasive approach, limited to only a few skilled surgeons, with insufficient options to treat large pt volume. With the discovery that AF often is initiated and maintained by electrical instability inside and around the Pulmonary Veins, catheter ablation is now a widely accepted early invasive strategy to cure AF. Success rates of 60% to 90% have been reported, depending on technique employed and the type of AF (Resp, chronic versus paroxysmal)
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
120
RF ablation with complete circumferential ablation around the right and PVs, optional additional lines between the lower and upper PVs, and towards the mitral valve ring.
Minimal invasive thoracoscopic surgery including isolation of the PVs by AtriCure and removal of the LAA.
St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein
Nieuwegein, Netherlands
Hospital Clinic Barcelona
Barcelona, Spain
Freedom from AF and/or secondary left atrial arrhythmias, lasting >60 sec, as determined by 7 day continuous Holter monitoring.
Time frame: 6 months
Safety and/or adverse events
Time frame: 6 months
Freedom of AADs, Decrease in the frequency and duration of AF episodes, Decrease in the number of AF related hospital admissions, Improvement in quality of life internet Follow Up, Decrease in number of cardioversions, PM implant
Time frame: 6 and 12 Months
Composite major complications, Serious Adverse Events, Serious Adverse Effects
Time frame: 12 Months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.