Heterogeneity in endpoints, monitoring methods and blanking periods in clinical trials of atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is a cornerstone of rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF). It is important that clinical trials in AF ablation have comparable endpoints and outcomes. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in AF ablation to evaluate endpoint definitions, monitoring methods, follow-up protocols and blanking periods. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for RCTs in catheter ablation for AF with ≥ 100 patients and ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Data were collected on study characteristics, patient demographics, arrhythmia monitoring methods, blanking periods, arrhythmia endpoints. RESULTS: 129 RCTs (n = 31,406) met inclusion criteria; 114 studies involved radiofrequency ablation and 43% patients had persistent AF. There were 19 different definitions of arrhythmia endpoints; the most common was AF/atrial tachyarrhythmia ≥ 30 s (102/129; 79%). Composite endpoints were used in 55 studies (43%). There were 11 different methods of monitoring arrhythmia recurrence; 24-h Holter (67/129; 52%) was most frequent, followed by transtelephonic/event-triggered monitoring (50/129; 39%), then 7-day Holter monitors (30/129; 23%). In the first year of follow-up, arrhythmia recurrence was most commonly assessed at 6 months (120/129; 93%), 12 months (117/129; 91%), and 3 months (116/129; 90%); 56 trials (43%) reported 1-month visit. Most trials used a 90-day blanking period (109/129, 84%). Recurrences during blanking period was reported in only 32 trials (25%). CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity exists in RCTs of AF ablation with varying definitions of arrhythmia recurrence, monitoring methods, follow-up schedules and blanking periods. Scientific consensus and more standardised assessment of arrhythmia recurrence is needed to improve comparability of clinical outcomes in RCTs of AF ablation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.