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.
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.
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.
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
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....
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:
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.
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
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.
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/