Atrial fibrillation trial to evaluate real-world procedures for their utility in helping to lower stroke events (AFTER-PULSE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Atrial fibrillation trial to evaluate real-world procedures for their utility in helping to lower stroke events: A randomized clinical trial

Background

Enhancing detection of unrecognized atrial fibrillation among acute ischemic stroke patients is crucial for secondary stroke prevention.

Aim

To evaluate whether the detection rate of new atrial fibrillation in acute ischemic stroke patients without known atrial fibrillation could be improved by doing serial 12-lead electrocardiograms once daily for five days, compared with conventional 24-h Holter monitoring (24-h Holter).

Methods

We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the detection rates of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between serial electrocardiograms versus 24-h Holter from October 2015 to October 2018 at six hospitals. Eligible participants were acute ischemic stroke patients with aged ≥65 years, with neither atrial fibrillation history nor any presence of atrial fibrillation on baseline electrocardiogram at admission. The primary outcome was newly detected electrocardiogram in the serial electrocardiograms and 24-h Holter group.

Results

Among 826 patients, baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between serial electrocardiograms versus 24-Holter to detect atrial fibrillation (8.4% vs. 6.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.69–2.01). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression revealed age ≥80 years and history of heart failure were associated with detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation whereas patients with lacunar infarction had lower odds for detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Conclusions

Serial electrocardiograms had comparable detection rate of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared with 24-h Holter and might be a viable alternative to 24-h Holter as a first-line approach to survey for potential paroxysmal atrial fibrillation among elderly patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02578979

Unique Identifiers: NCT02578979

Comparison of atrial fibrillation ablation efficacy using remote magnetic navigation vs. manual navigation with contact-force control

AIMS

This study aims to compare procedural parameters and clinical efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) vs. manual navigation (MAN) approach for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

146 patients with AF were enrolled in the study. In the RMN group (n=57), patients were treated with the CARTO® 3 in combination with the Niobe ES system. In the MAN group (n=89), ablation was performed with the EnSite Velocity and TactiCath™ Quartz catheter with direct contact force measurement. Procedural time, ablation time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and ablation counts were measured and compared between the groups. Recurrence of AF was evaluated after 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean procedure times (236.87±64.31 vs. 147.22±45.19 min, P<0.05), counts of RF applications (74.30±24.77 vs. 49.15±20.33, P<0.05) and total RFA times (4323.39±1426.69 vs. 2780.53±1157.85 s, P<0.05) were all significantly higher in the RMN than in the MAN group, respectively. In the same order, mean X-ray dose (9722.6±7507.4 vs. 8087.9±6051.5 mGy/cm², P=0.12) and mean total X-ray exposure time (8.07±4.20 vs. 9.54±5.47 min, P=0.08) were not statistically different. At 6-month follow-up, freedom from AF was similar in RMN and MAN group for paroxysmal (60.8% and 73%, respectively, P=0.42) and persistent AF (69.6% and 75.0%, respectively, P=0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the fact that mid-term clinical outcomes showed no significant differences in AF recurrences between groups and manual ablation strategy provided more favorable results regarding acute procedural parameters, we can conclude that the remote magnetic navigation is not superior to the manual approach.