ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
A randomized controlled trial of pulsed field ablation vs antiarrhythmic therapy as a first-line treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation: The AVANT GUARD trial rationale and design.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies have established catheter ablation as a safe and superior alternative to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as a first-line therapy in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). There are no randomized controlled trials assessing this strategy in patients with persistent AF. Objective: This study aims to establish the safety and effectiveness of pulsed field ablation (PFA) as a first-line treatment for persistent AF compared with AAD therapy. Methods: AVANT GUARD (A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Global Study Comparing Pulsed Field Ablation vs Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy as a First Line Treatment for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation) is a multicenter, global, pivotal investigational device exemption study that compares the safety and effectiveness of PFA with the pentaspline PFA catheter to AADs as first-line therapy for patients with persistent AF. All patients will receive an implantable cardiac monitor. Results: The primary safety end point, evaluated in PFA subjects, is a composite of defined acute and chronic device- and procedure-related serious adverse events. The primary effectiveness end point, evaluated in randomized PFA and AAD subjects at 12-month follow-up, is a composite of acute and chronic treatment success including freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence lasting ≥30 seconds (symptomatic) or ≥1 hour (asymptomatic), electrical cardioversion, or (re)ablation. Conclusion: AVANT GUARD will help fill a critical gap in our understanding of treatment approaches and disease progression for patients with persistent AF by providing a direct comparison between ablation using PFA versus AAD treatment as a first-line therapy with continuous monitoring to assess outcomes.
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.