Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyRandomised controlled trial
Ultrasound-guided vs conventional venous puncture for atrial fibrillation ablation: the ULYSSES trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- investigator-initiated
- multicentre
- open-label
- superiority
- stopped for efficacy at first interim analysis
Authors' conclusion
Ultrasound-guided venous access for atrial fibrillation ablation procedures significantly reduced vascular access site complications.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing AF or left atrial tachycardia catheter ablation
- Participants
- 986 patients · 6 centres
- Comparison
- Ultrasound-guided vs conventional femoral venous puncture
- Ultrasound-guidedn = 496
- Conventionaln = 490reference
- Primary endpoint
- Venous access site complications (arteriovenous fistula, false aneurysm, or access site bleeding requiring intervention or prolonging hospitalization)
- Follow-up
- 30 days after the procedure
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Venous access site complications (AV fistula, false aneurysm, or access site bleeding requiring intervention or prolonging hospitalisation) · 30 days
Relative risk
0.19
95% CI 0.05–0.63
P = 0.002
Events by treatment group
Intervention vs Control
RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.05–0.63); P = 0.002
Secondary outcomes
Unintended arterial puncture
P < 0.0001
Unsuccessful venous access requiring crossover
P < 0.0001
Original publication
Ultrasound-guided vs conventional venous puncture for atrial fibrillation ablation: the ULYSSES trial. Eur Heart J. Published 14 April 2026. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag291
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it