Evidence Hub

Marshall-Plan Ablation Strategy Versus Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Persistent AF: A Randomized Controlled Trial

N. Derval, R. Tixier, J. Duchateau, X. Bouteiller, Timothé Loock, A. Denis, R. Chauvel, B. Bouyer et al.

Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, 2025

120 participants · 40 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Beyond pulmonary vein (PV) isolation, the optimal ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare 2 ablation strategies in the treatment of patients with persistent AF: a comprehensive ablation strategy based on anatomic considerations versus PV isolation alone. METHODS: The Marshall-Plan trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, controlled clinical trial of superiority conducted at the Bordeaux University Hospital. Consecutive patients with symptomatic, documented persistent AF were included and randomized into 2 arms: Marshall-Plan consisting of PV isolation with additional ablation including vein of Marshall ethanol infusion, and lines of block at the mitral, dome, and cavotricuspid isthmuses versus PV isolation alone. The main outcome was the 1-year freedom from any arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia >30 seconds) after a single ablation procedure with or without any antiarrhythmic medication at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included (age 65±8 years; 21 women). Two patients were excluded from analysis. All PVs were successfully isolated in both groups. In the Marshall-Plan group, vein of Marshall ethanol infusion was completed in 57 (97%) patients. Conduction block across linear lesions was obtained in 93%, 92%, and 93% of the mitral, dome, and cavotricuspid isthmuses, respectively. The full lesion set was successfully completed in 52 (88%)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 120 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free