I recently read an article with the above title by John M Mandrola which I am sure that some others have already read. It discusses the efficacy of ablation and the results of a recently published study which compared ablation for AF versus a sham procedure. I quote:-
Why We Needed a Placebo- Controlled Ablation Trial
Many of my colleagues have long denied the need for a placebo-controlled trial. They argue that trials of ablation vs drugs show that ablation is superior in reducing AF episodes. Proponents also argue that, at least in some patients, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) terminates AF while the fibrillation persists in the muscle bundles within the vein, thereby "proving" that PVI results in immediate cure.
I offer three rebuttals:
What about the patient who was highly symptomatic before the ablation procedure and now feels great — but is in persistent AF ? This patient clearly has had a placebo effect.
Why is there such poor temporal correlation between AF and stroke? Further, how much AF, in terms of duration and frequency, is disease modifying? The ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6 trials couldn't tell us the duration of AF that warrants oral anticoagulation. Perhaps AF burden is just something we can measure, a marker of abnormal atrial substrate, and we are ablating a symptom rather than treating a disease..
Finally, if the main reason to ablate AF is to improve the subjective endpoint of quality of life (QOL), you need a placebo control arm. History is replete with examples of placebo controls overturning medical norms.
I have never believed that AF ablation was a complete placebo. My question was how much of it was resistant to placebo effect.
The study referred to:-
Pulmonary Vein Isolation vs Sham Intervention in Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation
The SHAM-PVI Randomized Clinical Trial
Rajdip Dulai, MBBS1,2,3; Neil Sulke, MD4; Nick Freemantle, PhD5; et al
This article is asking interesting questions about the placebo affect regarding quality of life which may be relevant to us all.
Thoughts?