NEJM published 2 RCTs of #AFib ablation vs AF drugs.
The rub was that the ablation was done EARLY in the course.
Practice had been to try drugs first then do ablation.
EARLY AF and STOP AF studied the procedure early.
#AHA20 Thread and my column >>
Both trials used the Medtronic cryoballoon system.
Medtronic participated in funding both trials.
STOP AF was 100% an industry trial. See pic.
Early AF had funding from many other sources
Background -- numerous trials have shown that AF ablation using different techniques (freezing or burning) can reduce AF episodes relative to meds.
In CABANA -- the largest outcome trial, AF ablation reduced AF but had no sig effect on clinical outcomes like stroke or death.
EARLY AF and STOP AF enrolled young patients with good hearts, small left atrium and mostly low-burden AF.

Both trials chose as their endpoint a surrogate endpoint (not stroke or death) but --essentially--an AF episode or in STOP AF, a marker of procedure failure.
Both trials found that AF ablation reduces any recurrence of AF.
EARLY AF had the more rigorous design with loop recorders and maximal dosing of drugs.

Both trials reported complications from the procedure (and to an extent from the drugs)
In my column I explore the translation of these trials.

I express fear that these trials may fuel a rise in inappropriate AF ablation procedures

AF ablation is well-reimbursed and is a money maker for industry, hospitals and docs. *Moral Hazard*
medscape.com/viewarticle/94…
But these trials have limitations.
STOP AF was hugely biased against drugs -- see my column
In EARLY AF the median AF burden in ablation arm was 0% vs 0.13% in the drug arm. Yet patients feel better after ablation????
No AF ablation trial has yet had a proper control...
...as Dr. Rod Gimbel points out in my piece, there ought to be an observation arm. No rhythm drugs, no ablation, just a calm caring clinician. AF often regresses

I think we also ought to have a placebo procedure arm. Like was done w single-vessel coronary disease in Orbita.
Ablation has a role in selected patients, but #epeeps ought to have the humility to realize future generations will scoff at the inelegance of this procedure.

Please do read my column and make a comment.
thanks to @theheartorg @DhirajGuptaBHRS @ftrae and Dr. P Dorian
And congratulations to the many investigators especially the PIs @DrJasonAndrade and @omwazni

Critiques of trials and commentary on how they apply in the real world should NEVER be considered personal.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Mandrola, MD

John Mandrola, MD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drjohnm

7 Sep
Giving talks in which you don't have a slide deck already made is illuminating. Look what I found out about publication bias>
It was "discovered" in 1979 by Rosenthal content.apa.org/record/1979-27…
How did he do this?
Thread ...
He used a variant of ...sit down for this...the Fragility Index, which we reported on in cardiology
ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CI…
The criticism was fierce. But I liked it. @ShahzebKhanMD
Here's Rosenthal's explanation

I am no stats person but this looks a lot like a fragility concept applied to all studies.
Read 7 tweets
29 Aug
Thread: To me, the most stunning report from #ESCCongress thus far: RATE-AF trial
Older pts w/ permanent AF + shortness of breath. (there are lots of these pts).
Rate control is crucial
In 2020, most receive beta-blockers.
But BB can cause dyspnea.
What about dig?
Gulp! 1/
Rate-AF randomized these pts to bb vs digoxin. Here is the protocol paper: bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjope…
Crucially they looked at quality of life. That's a really important outcome.
The results shocked me. Look at heart rates. Dig isn't supposed to be this good.
Read 10 tweets
29 Jun
Need help from trial methods people. I ran across this amazing paper by @phlegmfighter et al looking at consequences of recommendations in the design and interpretation of Non-inferiority trials. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28875400/
THEY SUGGEST SYSTEMIC BIASES.
Thread Image
If you put the new treatment on the left side of the interpretative diagram, there are four ways to make Non-inferiority. Scenarios 1-4. but.... Image
They show that if the convention were to put the active control on the left side of the diagram, make the new treatment the control, you would bias strongly toward the control (thus making NI more difficult to reach). No change in data, just the mirror image here: Image
Read 6 tweets
15 May
Thread coming on one way docs might add value to the #COVID19 crisis: critical appraisal.
I wrote a critique of a flawed study published in a major journal. The study reported on the assoc of anticoagulant use and death in COVID pts.
medscape.com/viewarticle/93…
It is an important topic b/c numerous studies have suggested a high rate of clot-related complications in acute #COVID19 illness. it makes sense to consider anti-coagulants...
But anticoagulants come with harms--bleeding. What's more, in non-COVID pts we know that there are actual clots that we are treating. Infection control issues sometimes prevents knowing whether a person w/ #COVID19 actually has clots.
Read 13 tweets
7 May
Oh my, @theheartorg and @Medscape are crushing it with not one but two great columns on the limits of testing for #covid19 --This is important on many levels, not just for the virus but also for literacy of medical testing.
Very Brief Thread -- I am excited
In the first column, my friend @anish_koka a doc w #SkinInTheGame writes on why we can't test ourselves out of the #COVID19 crisis. medscape.com/viewarticle/92…
He debunks the Hammer/Dance figures with help from @AndrewFoy82 who does an actual correlation line --
There is more than in this column than just debunking of analyses in which one circles the dots that fit their narrative. Take a look -- Now to the second column.
Read 6 tweets
1 May
Short Thread on my latest column over at @medscape About #COVID19 -- My POV: I am a doc who treats real patients. Every Rx decision requires balances the risks of the disease against the risks and benefits of the intervention. 1/
But it is not pure arithmetic. You have to think about asymmetries --like a stroke is usually worse than a bleed (anticoagulation). You also have to consider different patients have different experiences and goals. (Eg. NY COVID not same Montana) 2/
Always bad is to avoid facing harsh realities. If you dance around frank discussions of say a cancer or heart failure diagnosis you do patients a disservice. I wish everyone had an easy problem--like SVT. 3/
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!