Durable effectiveness and safety of hybrid ablation versus catheter ablation: 2-year results from the randomized CEASE-AF trial

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00209775%3A_____%2F25%3AN0000013" target="_blank" >RIV/00209775:_____/25:N0000013 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/60076658:12110/25:43910523 RIV/00216224:14110/25:00141719

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12304665/" target="_blank" >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12304665/</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf146" target="_blank" >10.1093/ejcts/ezaf146</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Durable effectiveness and safety of hybrid ablation versus catheter ablation: 2-year results from the randomized CEASE-AF trial

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

OBJECTIVES The CEASE-AF trial demonstrated that epicardial-endocardial hybrid ablation (HA) had superior effectiveness compared to endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), without significantly increasing major complications during a 12-month period. Most contemporary AF ablation trials have not evaluated durability beyond 12 months. Therefore, 24-month effectiveness and safety of HA and CA are compared. METHODS CEASE-AF is a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial. Patients 18–75 years of age with symptomatic, drug refractory persistent AF and left atrial diameter >4.0 cm or long-standing persistent AF were randomized 2:1 to HA (posterior wall and pulmonary vein isolation with left atrial appendage exclusion) or CA (pulmonary vein isolation). Secondary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia off class I/III anti-arrhythmic drugs except for those who previously failed at doses not exceeding those previously failed through a 24-month follow-up period. Major complications and reinterventions were evaluated. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population was 102 patients with HA and 52 patients with CA. Seventy-five percent were male, 80.5% had persistent AF and 19.5% had long-standing persistent AF, with a mean age of 60.7 ± 7.9 years. Effectiveness for 24 months was 66.3% (63/95) with HA and 33.3% (17/51) with CA [absolute difference 33.0% (95% confidence interval 14.3%, 48.3%; P < 0.001)]. Major complication rates were 10.8% (11/102) with HA and 9.6% (5/52) with CA (P = 1.0), and fewer patients had reinterventions after HA than CA [18.9% (18/95) vs 52.9% (27/51), P < 0.001].

Název v anglickém jazyce

Durable effectiveness and safety of hybrid ablation versus catheter ablation: 2-year results from the randomized CEASE-AF trial

Popis výsledku anglicky

OBJECTIVES The CEASE-AF trial demonstrated that epicardial-endocardial hybrid ablation (HA) had superior effectiveness compared to endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), without significantly increasing major complications during a 12-month period. Most contemporary AF ablation trials have not evaluated durability beyond 12 months. Therefore, 24-month effectiveness and safety of HA and CA are compared. METHODS CEASE-AF is a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial. Patients 18–75 years of age with symptomatic, drug refractory persistent AF and left atrial diameter >4.0 cm or long-standing persistent AF were randomized 2:1 to HA (posterior wall and pulmonary vein isolation with left atrial appendage exclusion) or CA (pulmonary vein isolation). Secondary effectiveness was freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia off class I/III anti-arrhythmic drugs except for those who previously failed at doses not exceeding those previously failed through a 24-month follow-up period. Major complications and reinterventions were evaluated. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population was 102 patients with HA and 52 patients with CA. Seventy-five percent were male, 80.5% had persistent AF and 19.5% had long-standing persistent AF, with a mean age of 60.7 ± 7.9 years. Effectiveness for 24 months was 66.3% (63/95) with HA and 33.3% (17/51) with CA [absolute difference 33.0% (95% confidence interval 14.3%, 48.3%; P < 0.001)]. Major complication rates were 10.8% (11/102) with HA and 9.6% (5/52) with CA (P = 1.0), and fewer patients had reinterventions after HA than CA [18.9% (18/95) vs 52.9% (27/51), P < 0.001].

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery

ISSN

1010-7940

e-ISSN

1010-7940

Svazek periodika

67

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

7

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

1-8

Kód UT WoS článku

001538710300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105011834432