Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs Sham Intervention in Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: The SHAM-PVI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: There are concerns that pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation may have a profound placebo effect, but no double-blind randomized clinical trials have been conducted. //
\n
\nObjective: To determine whether pulmonary vein isolation is more effective than a sham procedure for improving outcomes in atrial fibrillation. //
\n
\nDesign, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 tertiary centers in the UK between January 2020 and March 2024 among patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation. Major exclusion criteria included long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, prior left atrium ablation, other arrhythmias requiring ablative therapy, a left atrium of 5.5 cm or larger, and ejection fraction of less than 35%. //
\n
\nIntervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive pulmonary vein isolation with cryoablation (n = 64) or a sham procedure with phrenic nerve pacing (n = 62). //
\n
\nMain Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was atrial fibrillation burden at 6 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period. Secondary outcomes included quality-of-life measures, time to events, and safety. Atrial fibrillation burden was measured by an implantable loop recorder. //
\n
\nResults: A total of 126 participants were randomized (mean age, 66.8 years; 89 men [70.63%]; 20.63% with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation). The absolute mean atrial fibrillation burden change from baseline to 6 months was 60.31% in the ablation group and 35.0% in the sham group (geometric mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.42; P < .001). The estimated difference in the overall Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life score at 6 months, favoring catheter ablation, was 18.39 points (95% CI, 11.48-25.30 points). The Short Form 36 general health score also improved substantially more with ablation, with an estimated difference of 9.27 points at 6 months (95% CI, 3.78-14.76 points). //
\n
\nConclusions and Relevance: Pulmonary vein isolation resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important decrease in atrial fibrillation burden at 6 months, with substantial improvements in symptoms and quality of life, compared with a sham procedure. //
\n
\nTrial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04272762

Publication Details

Journal
UCL Discovery (University College London)
Published
2024-09-02
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Theoretical and Computational Physics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.62
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs Sham Intervention in Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: The SHAM-PVI Randomized Clinical Trial

2 citations
UCL Discovery (University College London)
Theoretical and Computational Physics
0.62
article

Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs Sham Intervention in Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: The SHAM-PVI Randomized Clinical Trial

article en
2 citations

Abstract

Importance: There are concerns that pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation may have a profound placebo effect, but no double-blind randomized clinical trials have been conducted. //
\n
\nObjective: To determine whether pulmonary vein isolation is more effective than a sham procedure for improving outcomes in atrial fibrillation. //
\n
\nDesign, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 tertiary centers in the UK between January 2020 and March 2024 among patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation. Major exclusion criteria included long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, prior left atrium ablation, other arrhythmias requiring ablative therapy, a left atrium of 5.5 cm or larger, and ejection fraction of less than 35%. //
\n
\nIntervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive pulmonary vein isolation with cryoablation (n = 64) or a sham procedure with phrenic nerve pacing (n = 62). //
\n
\nMain Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was atrial fibrillation burden at 6 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period. Secondary outcomes included quality-of-life measures, time to events, and safety. Atrial fibrillation burden was measured by an implantable loop recorder. //
\n
\nResults: A total of 126 participants were randomized (mean age, 66.8 years; 89 men [70.63%]; 20.63% with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation). The absolute mean atrial fibrillation burden change from baseline to 6 months was 60.31% in the ablation group and 35.0% in the sham group (geometric mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.42; P < .001). The estimated difference in the overall Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life score at 6 months, favoring catheter ablation, was 18.39 points (95% CI, 11.48-25.30 points). The Short Form 36 general health score also improved substantially more with ablation, with an estimated difference of 9.27 points at 6 months (95% CI, 3.78-14.76 points). //
\n
\nConclusions and Relevance: Pulmonary vein isolation resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important decrease in atrial fibrillation burden at 6 months, with substantial improvements in symptoms and quality of life, compared with a sham procedure. //
\n
\nTrial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04272762

UCL Discovery (University College London)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Theoretical and Computational Physics
0.62
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs Sham Intervention in Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: The SHAM-PVI Randomized Clinical Trial · UCL Discovery (University College London) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS