Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Mapping-Guided Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (MAP-AF): A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors' conclusion
In patients with persistent AF, the addition of mapping-guided ablation of focal activation sites to PVI did not improve clinical outcomes compared with PVI alone.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF)
- Participants
- 98 vs 102
- Comparison
- Mapping-guided ablation of focal activation sites plus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vs PVI alone
- Mapping-guidedn = 98
- PVI alonen = 102reference
- Primary endpoint
- Freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia without antiarrhythmic drugs beyond a 90-day blanking period
- Follow-up
- 2-year follow-up
Methodological detailsmulticenter, single-blinded, 1:1 ratio
- Multicenter
- Single-blinded
- 1:1 ratio
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia without antiarrhythmic drugs
Hazard ratio
1.26
95% CI 0.76–2.10
P = 0.37
By group
Mapping-guided vs PVI alone
HR 1.26 (95% CI 0.76–2.10); P = 0.37
Further findings
Follow-up duration
Focal activation sites per patient (mapping-guided group)
- Left atrium
- 2.6±0.3
- Right atrium
- 2.5±0.2
Safety
Adverse events
P = 0.12
Original publication
Mapping-Guided Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (MAP-AF): A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Published 25 July 2024. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it