Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data: Difference between revisions
m Aditya Govindavarjhulla moved page Atrial fibrillation clinical trial data to Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In this prospective, multicenter study, 41 patients were randomized to PV isolation and 40 to AV node ablation with biventricular pacing. At 6 months, patients in the PV isolation group had higher mean ejection fractions (35% vs 29%, p<0.001), greater 6 minute distances walked (340 vs 297 meters, p <0.001), and better quality of life scores as determined by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (60 vs 82, p<0.001, where lower scores indicate better quality of life) than those in the AV node ablation arm. | In this prospective, multicenter study, 41 patients were randomized to PV isolation and 40 to AV node ablation with biventricular pacing. At 6 months, patients in the PV isolation group had higher mean ejection fractions (35% vs 29%, p<0.001), greater 6 minute distances walked (340 vs 297 meters, p <0.001), and better quality of life scores as determined by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (60 vs 82, p<0.001, where lower scores indicate better quality of life) than those in the AV node ablation arm. | ||
These PABA-CHF study findings thus suggest the potential advantages of performing PV isolation over AV node ablation with biventricular pacing for this patient population. | These PABA-CHF study findings thus suggest the potential advantages of performing PV isolation over [[AV node]] ablation with [[Cardiac resynchronization therapy|biventricular pacing]] for this patient population. | ||
Noted limitations of the study include using sites with extensive experience in performing ablations, an unblinded study design, and a relatively short follow-up time. | Noted limitations of the study include using sites with extensive experience in performing ablations, an unblinded study design, and a relatively short follow-up time. | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 9 January 2013
|
Atrial Fibrillation Microchapters | |
|
Special Groups | |
|---|---|
|
Diagnosis | |
|
Treatment | |
|
Cardioversion | |
|
Anticoagulation | |
|
Surgery | |
|
Case Studies | |
|
Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data On the Web | |
|
Directions to Hospitals Treating Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data | |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Atrial fibrillation supportive trial data | |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]
Clinical Trial Data
Results from the Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation (PVAI) versus AV node ablation with Bi-Ventricular Pacing for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure (PABA-CHF) study suggest that pulmonary vein (PV) isolation leads to better morphologic and functional results than atrioventricular (AV) node ablation with biventricular pacing for congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
In this prospective, multicenter study, 41 patients were randomized to PV isolation and 40 to AV node ablation with biventricular pacing. At 6 months, patients in the PV isolation group had higher mean ejection fractions (35% vs 29%, p<0.001), greater 6 minute distances walked (340 vs 297 meters, p <0.001), and better quality of life scores as determined by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (60 vs 82, p<0.001, where lower scores indicate better quality of life) than those in the AV node ablation arm.
These PABA-CHF study findings thus suggest the potential advantages of performing PV isolation over AV node ablation with biventricular pacing for this patient population.
Noted limitations of the study include using sites with extensive experience in performing ablations, an unblinded study design, and a relatively short follow-up time.
References