Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2018
Percutaneous versus thoracoscopic ablation of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomised controlled trial - the FAST II study.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01336075 (Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Atrial Fibrillation: Ablation or Surgical Treatment II: FAST II A Randomized Study Comparing Non-pharmacologic Therapy in Patients With Drug-refractory Atrial Fibrillation Referred for a First Time Invasive Treatment.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface electrocardiogram f wave analysis in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing thoracoscopic epicardial ablation.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Prognostic implication of left atrial strain in patients experiencing early recurrence of atrial fibrillation after totally thoracoscopic ablation.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Catheter vs thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of arrhythmia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most efficient first-time invasive treatment, for achieving sinus rhythm, in symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation has not been established. We aimed to compare percutaneous catheter and video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary vein radiofrequency ablation in patients referred for first-time invasive treatment due to symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome of interest was the prevalence of atrial fibrillation with and without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months.
methodsNinety patients were planned to be randomised to either video-assisted thoracoscopic radiofrequency pulmonary vein ablation with concomitant left atrial appendage excision or percutaneous catheter pulmonary vein ablation. Episodes of atrial fibrillation were defined as more than 30 s of atrial fibrillation observed on Holter monitoring/telemetry or clinical episodes documented by ECG.
resultsThe study was terminated prematurely due to a lack of eligible patients. Only 21 patients were randomised and treated according to the study protocol. Thoracoscopic pulmonary vein ablation was performed in 10 patients, and 11 patients were treated with catheter ablation. The absence of atrial fibrillation without the use of anti-arrhythmic drugs throughout the follow-up was observed in 70% of patients following thoracoscopic pulmonary vein ablation and 18% after catheter ablation (p < 0.03).
conclusionThoracoscopic pulmonary vein ablation may be superior to catheter ablation for first-time invasive treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with regard to obtaining sinus rhythm off anti-arrhythmic drugs 12 months postoperative.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01336075 . Registered April 15th, 2011.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.