Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33482387›Full record

Trial reportHeart rhythm2021

Determinants of outcome impact of vein of Marshall ethanol infusion when added to catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: A secondary analysis of the VENUS randomized clinical trial.

Adi Lador, Leif E Peterson, Vijay Swarup, Paul A Schurmann, Akash Makkar, Rahul N Doshi, David DeLurgio, Charles A Athill, Kenneth A Ellenbogen, Andrea Natale and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Heart rhythm, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Tips and Tricks to Perform a Successful Vein of Marshall Alcohol Ablation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Protocol modifications reduce risk of delayed pericardial effusions after vein of Marshall ethanol infusion: follow-up from the Maine experience.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Adi LadorHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Leif E PetersonHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Vijay SwarupArizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
Paul A SchurmannHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas; Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
Akash MakkarArizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
Rahul N DoshiDivision of Cardiology, Keck-USC University Hospital, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
David DeLurgioDivision of Cardiology, Emory St. Joseph's Hospital, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Charles A AthillSan Diego Cardiac Center, Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California.
Kenneth A EllenbogenDivision of Cardiology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.
Andrea NataleTexas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, St David's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.
Jayanthi KoneruDivision of Cardiology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.
Amish S DaveHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Irakli GiorgberidzeMichael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
Hamid AfsharMichael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
Michelle L GuthrieHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Raquel BungeHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Carlos A MorilloLibin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Neal S KleimanHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
Miguel ValderrábanoHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Research Institute, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: MValderrabano@houstonmethodist.org.
Houston Methodist · USArizona Heart Hospital · USMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · USVirginia Commonwealth University · USEmory University · USSharp Memorial Hospital · USSt David's Medical Center · USUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion for Persistent Atrial FibrillationR01HL115003 · NHLBI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI VALDERRABANO, MIGUEL · 2013 to 2017
$3.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL115003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Vein of Marshall Ethanol for Untreated Persistent AF (VENUS) trial demonstrated that adding vein of Marshall (VOM) ethanol infusion to catheter ablation (CA) improves ablation outcomes in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). There was significant heterogeneity in the impact of VOM ethanol infusion on rhythm control.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the association between outcomes and (1) achievement of bidirectional perimitral conduction block and (2) procedural volume.

methodsThe VENUS trial randomized patients with persistent AF (N = 343) to CA combined with VOM ethanol or CA alone. The primary outcome (freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia [AT] lasting longer than 30 seconds after a single procedure) was analyzed by 2 categories: (1) successful vs no perimitral block and (2) high- (>20 patients enrolled) vs low-volume centers.

resultsIn patients with perimitral block, the primary outcome was reached 54.3% after VOM-CA and 37% after CA alone (P = .01). Among patients without perimitral block, freedom from AF/AT was 34.0% after VOM-CA and 37.0% after CA (P = .583). In high-volume centers, the primary outcome was reached in 56.4% after VOM-CA and 40.2% after CA (P = .01). In low-volume centers, freedom from AF/AT was 30.77% after VOM-CA and 32.61% after CA (P = .84). In patients with successful perimitral block from high-volume centers, the primary outcome was reached in 59% after VOM-CA and 39.1% after CA (P = .01). Tests for interaction were significant (P = .002 for perimitral block and P = .04 for center volume).

conclusionAdding VOM ethanol infusion to CA has a greater impact on outcomes when associated with perimitral block and performed in high-volume centers. Perimitral block should be part of the VOM procedure.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAtrial FibrillationCatheter AblationEthanolFemaleHeart Conduction SystemHeart RateHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary VeinsRecurrenceEthanolCatheter ablationEthanolMitral isthmusPersistent atrial fibrillationVein of Marshall

Identifiers

PMID33482387
PMCPMC8254797
OpenAlexW3124897040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.