Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (VOM-R01)
The broad, long-term objective of this project is to evaluate the therapeutic value of vein of Marshall (VOM) ethanol infusion when added to catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). AF is the most common sustained arrhythmia in adults, and it is a leading cause of stroke, disability and increased mortality. Catheter ablation - pulmonary vein (PV) antral isolation (PVAI)- can lead to cure, but is best suited for paroxysmal AF, in which ectopic beats arising from the pulmonary veins were shown to initiate AF. PVAI success is lower in persistent AF, in which the role of the cardiac autonomic system, particularly the intrinsic cardiac ganglia, is being increasingly recognized. Expanding the ablation lesions to include greater areas the left atrial (LA) anatomy marginally improves outcomes, but also leads to increases in procedural complexity and duration, need of repeat procedures, and complications such as atrial flutters, particularly perimitral flutter (PMF). The investigators have developed a technique to perform rapid ablation of atrial tissues in AF using ethanol infusion in the vein of Marshall (VOM), and have shown: 1) Effective, rapid and safe tissue ablation of LA tissue neighboring the LA ridge and left inferior PV; 2) Regional LA vagal denervation by reaching the intrinsic cardiac ganglia; and 3) Facilitation of cure of PMF by ablating most of the mitral isthmus.
The investigators propose to evaluate outcomes differences yielded by VOM ethanol when added to conventional PVAI. The specific aims are: #1.To assesses the impact of VOM ethanol infusion in procedure success when added to de novo catheter ablation of persistent AF. The investigators will randomize patients with persistent AF undergoing a first AF ablation to standard PVAI vs. a combined VOM ethanol infusion plus PVAI (VOM-PV) #2. To assess the impact of VOM ethanol infusion added to repeat catheter ablation of recurrent AF after a failed ablation. Patients undergoing a repeat procedure for persistent AF after a failed PVAI will be randomized to either PVAI or VOM-PV as their repeat procedure. End points will include freedom from symptomatic or electrocardiographic AF after 12-15 months.
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Subject)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation|
- Vein Of Marshal (VOM) [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
Freedom from symptomatic AF or flutter after the 3-month blanking period AND reduction of AF/flutter to less than 1 min/day in a continuous 4-week EKG monitor between 6-12 months.
- Clinical success [ Time Frame: 12 month ]Freedom from symptomatic AF/flutter but AF/flutter > 1 min/day < than 1% between 6 and 12 months.
|Study Start Date:||October 2013|
|Estimated Study Completion Date:||December 2020|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date:||December 2019 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Active Comparator: Standard Catheter Ablation Patient Group
Patients will have a standard procedure ablation
The doctor will perform only the standard procedure. Throughout the procedure, the researchers will document the following information for ALL patients: measurements such as whether the treatment was successful or unsuccessful, X-ray exposure time, procedure time, whether there were any complications, and other general procedural measurements.
Other Name: standard catheter ablation procedure,
Active Comparator: Vein of Marshall and Standar procedure
The doctor will inject Ethanol through a balloon catheter into the VOM
We enter the CS with a sheath advanced from the right internal jugular vein. A sub-selector catheter with a ~90° angle at the tip (typically, a left internal mammary artery angioplasty guide catheter) is advanced through the CS sheath with its tip pointing superiorly and posteriorly.
Other Name: Alcohol
Although the risk of stroke is comparable in persistent and paroxysmal AF, the prevalence of persistent AF increases dramatically with increasing age, and thus is an overall more significant cause of morbidity and mortality. In the United States, there are currently an estimated 3.0 million adults with AF, and this number is expected to double in the next 25 years. Hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of AF are close to half a million per year, which generates a tremendous economic burden on the health care system. When compared to health care costs of non-AF control subjects, patients with AF have greater annual healthcare costs (up to $8705 total annual incremental cost). On the basis of current prevalence data, it is estimated that AF leads to a national incremental health care cost of up to $26 billion. Inadequacy of pharmacological treatment options for persistent AF Management strategies are directed at heart rate control and stroke prevention -mere palliation- or at rhythm control. It has been shown that rhythm control strategies using antiarrhythmic drugs offer no benefit in elderly patients or patients with heart failure. Most of the lack of benefit of such rhythm control strategy is thought to be due to the adverse effects and suboptimal efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs that can potentially augment mortality. Indeed, preservation of normal sinus rhythm is associated with decreased mortality. Dronedarone, the only antiarrhythmic drug shown to improve outcomes in nonpermanent AF compared to placebo, has been shown to double mortality, stroke and hospitalization for heart failure in the PALLAS study in patients with permanent. Thus, antiarrhythmic drugs remain suboptimal at best for the treatment of AF.
Shortcomings of catheter ablation of persistent AF Weak mechanistic rationale: Isolation of the pulmonary vein (PVs2) and adjacent LA (PV antrum) is the accepted procedural endpoint, based on the mechanistic concept that atrial extrasystoles arising from the PVs initiate paroxysmal AF. Other, non-PV triggers have been demonstrated.36 The link between PV extra systoles and AF is clear in paroxysmal AF, but not in persistent AF, in which the mechanisms of AF seem to be related more to a chronic atrial substrate than to acute triggers.4 Indeed, intramural reentry in the posterior LA seems to be particularly relevant in chronic models of AF. In persistent AF, the procedure has evolved, rather simplistically, to include additional lesions -besides isolation of the PVs, variably placed in the posterior wall, LA roof, and towards the mitral annulus, the superior vena cava,44 left atrial appendage, and other areas where complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) may be mapped. This brute force approach of simply destroying more tissue has yielded additional success, but new procedural targets with solid mechanistic bases are needed.
Suboptimal success and need for repeat procedures. Despite the additional tissue destruction, ablation success in persistent AF is with much lower than in paroxysmal AF, with single procedure success reported as low as 27%, 36%, or 49%, but up to 61% or 67%, depending on study heterogeneities in: definitions of persistent AF and of recurrence of AF, the type of AF monitoring, and ablation technique and operator experience. In order to achieve overall acceptable success rates, (which can reach up to 79%-94%), there is a consistent need for repeat procedures (sometimes up to 4) and the concomitant use of antiarrhythmic drugs. The rate of repeat procedures in experienced centers can reach up to 70 to 80%.PMF after catheter ablation of persistent AF. Clinical failures of a first ablation procedure are caused, in a significant portion of patients, by atrial flutters, rather than recurrent AF, and recurrence as flutter portends a greater chance of success in a second procedure. Such atrial flutters may be caused by perimitral reentry in up to 33-60% of the patients. Catheter ablation of PMF involves the creation of a linear lesion from the mitral annulus to the left inferior PV (the so-called mitral isthmus).Achieving a complete ablation (defined by bidirectional conduction block across the ablation line) can be very difficult, with success rates reported as 32%, 64%, or 71%. It sometimes requires ablation inside the coronary sinus (CS), in close proximity to the circumflex coronary artery, which could be damaged of note, incomplete ablation of the mitral isthmus is proarrhythmogenic, increasing the risk of recurrent flutter by up to 4 times.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01898221
|Contact: Raquel R Bunge, BSNfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact: Morgan Yrshus, BSN, RN||713-441-3248||mkyrshus@Houstonmethodist.org|
|United States, Arizona|
|Arizona Heart Rhythm Center||Recruiting|
|Phoenix, Arizona, United States, 85013|
|Contact: Sophie Raymond, MS 602-456-2342 ext 1001 email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Vijay Swarup, MD|
|United States, California|
|USC Los Angeles - Keck Hopsital||Recruiting|
|Los Angeles, California, United States, 90033|
|Contact: Melissa Minor, RN 323-442-7983 Melissa.Minor@med.usc.edu|
|Principal Investigator: Rahul Doshi, MD|
|San Diego Cardiac Center||Recruiting|
|San Diego, California, United States, 92123|
|Contact: Chris Kohlmeyer 858-244-6800 ext 6886 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact: Donna Small 858-244-6800 email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Charles Athill, MD|
|United States, Georgia|
|Emory University Hospital||Recruiting|
|Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30308|
|Contact: Paige Smith, RN, MS 404-686-7992 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact: Cindy Barnes, RN 678-843-6093 Cynthia.email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: David DeLurgio, MD|
|United States, Texas|
|Texas Cardiac Arrythmia Research Foundation||Recruiting|
|Austin, Texas, United States, 78705|
|Contact: Deb Cardinal 512-458-9410 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact: Chantal Scallon 512-458-9410 email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Andrea Natale, MD|
|Houston, Texas, United States, 77030|
|Contact: Morgan K Yrshus, RN BSN 713-441-3248 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact: Rejani Nair, RN BSN 713-441-6564 RRNAIR@HoustonMethodist.org|
|Principal Investigator: Miguel Valderrabano, MD|
|Houston, Texas, United States, 77030|
|Contact: Lenis Sosa, MSN, RN 281-507-8229 email@example.com|
|Contact: Alician Brown, MPH CCRP 713.798.8949 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Irakli Giorgberidze, MD|
|United States, Virginia|
|Virginia Commonwealth University||Enrolling by invitation|
|Richmond, Virginia, United States, 23292|
|Principal Investigator:||Miguel Valderrabano, MD||The Methodist Hospital System|