Abstract

Background: Catheter ablation has become a well-established indication for long-term rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients refractory to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs). Efficacy and safety of AF catheter ablation (AFCA) before AADs failure are, instead, questioned.Objective: The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing first-line AFCA with AADs in symptomatic patients with paroxysmal AF.Methods: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of binary outcome events comparing AFCA with AADs in rhythm control-naïve patients. The primary outcomes, also stratified by the type of ablation energy (radiofrequency or cryoenergy), were (1) recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias and (2) recurrence of symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias. The secondary outcomes included adverse events.Results: Six RCTs were included in the analysis. AFCA was associated with lower recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmias [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.72], consistent across the two types of ablation energy (radiofrequency, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28–0.89; cryoenergy, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50–0.72; p-value for subgroup differences: 0.55). Similarly, AFCA was related to less symptomatic arrhythmic recurrences (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.79). Overall, adverse events did not differ. A trend toward increased periprocedural cardiac tamponade or phrenic nerve palsy was observed in the AFCA group, while more atrial flutter episodes with 1:1 atrioventricular conduction and syncopal events were reported in the AAD group.Conclusions: First-line rhythm control therapy with AFCA, independent from the adopted energy source (radiofrequency or cryoenergy), reduces long-term arrhythmic recurrences in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF compared with AADs.

Highlights

  • Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia, affecting up to 2% of the population (1)

  • Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating radiofrequency (RF) ablation compared with Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment in rhythm control-naïve patients (10–12) had demonstrated lower recurrence rate by ablation, at the price of transiently exposing the patient to the rare, but not negligible, risk of periprocedural complications (13)

  • The resulting meta-analytic relative risk (RR) of observing the investigated outcomes in AF catheter ablation (AFCA) group compared with AAD group, along with their 95% confidence interval (CI), is reported

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia, affecting up to 2% of the population (1). Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are considered as the first-line option for the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) in patients with symptomatic AF episodes; they are limited by a relatively low efficacy and substantial side effects (2– 4). AF catheter ablation (AFCA) has established itself as a superior alternative to AADs in terms of long-term sinus rhythm maintenance and quality of life (5, 6). Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating radiofrequency (RF) ablation compared with AADs as first-line treatment in rhythm control-naïve patients (10–12) had demonstrated lower recurrence rate by ablation, at the price of transiently exposing the patient to the rare, but not negligible, risk of periprocedural complications (13). Three RCTs comparing cryoballoon ablation and AADs as first-line rhythm control therapy have been published (14–16). Catheter ablation has become a well-established indication for long-term rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients refractory to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs). Efficacy and safety of AF catheter ablation (AFCA) before AADs failure are, instead, questioned

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call