In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation , evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias , reducing the need for cardioversion , and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations .
BACKGROUND The optimal rhythm management strategy for people with non-paroxysmal ( persistent or long-st and ing persistent ) atrial fibrilation is currently not well defined .
Antiarrhythmic drugs have been the mainstay of therapy .
But recently , in people who have not responded to antiarrhythmic drugs , the use of ablation ( catheter and surgical ) has emerged as an alternative to maintain sinus rhythm to avoid long-term atrial fibrillation complications .
However , evidence from r and omised trials about the efficacy and safety of ablation in non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is limited .
OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of ablation ( catheter and surgical ) in people with non-paroxysmal ( persistent or long-st and ing persistent ) atrial fibrillation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs .
Radiofrequency catheter ablation maintains its efficacy better than antiarrhythmic medication in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: On-treatment analysis of the randomized controlled MANTRA-PAF trial.
BACKGROUND The Medical ANtiarrhythmic Treatment or Radiofrequency Ablation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation ( MANTRA-PAF ) is a r and omized trial comparing radiofrequency catheter ablation ( RFA ) to antiarrhythmic drugs ( AADs ) as first-line treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( PAF ) . In order to eliminate the clouding effect of crossover we performed an on-treatment analysis of the data . METHODS AND RESULTS Patients ( n=294 ) were divided into three groups : those receiving only the assigned therapy ( RFA and AAD groups ) and those receiving both therapies ( crossover group ) . The primary end points were AF burden in 7-day Holter recordings at 3 , 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 months and cumulative AF burden in all recordings . At 24 months , AF burden was significantly lower in the RFA ( n=110 ) than in the AAD ( n=92 ) and the crossover ( n=84 ) groups ( 90th percentile 1 % vs. 10 % vs. 16 % , P=0.007 ) , and more patients were free from any AF ( 89 % vs. 73 % vs. 74 % , P=0.006 ) . In the RFA , AAD and the crossover groups 63 % , 59 % and 21 % ( P<0.001 ) of the patients had no AF episodes in any Holter recording , respectively . Quality of life improved significantly in all groups . There were no differences in serious adverse events between the RFA , AAD and crossover groups ( 19 % vs. 8 % vs. 23 % ) ( P=0.10 ) . CONCLUSIONS In the treatment of antiarrhythmic therapy naïve patients with PAF long-term efficacy of RFA was superior to AAD therapy . Thus , it is reasonable to offer RFA as first-line treatment for highly symptomatic patients who accept the risks of the procedure and are aware of frequent need for reablation(s )
In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation , evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias , reducing the need for cardioversion , and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations .
BACKGROUND The optimal rhythm management strategy for people with non-paroxysmal ( persistent or long-st and ing persistent ) atrial fibrilation is currently not well defined .
Antiarrhythmic drugs have been the mainstay of therapy .
But recently , in people who have not responded to antiarrhythmic drugs , the use of ablation ( catheter and surgical ) has emerged as an alternative to maintain sinus rhythm to avoid long-term atrial fibrillation complications .
However , evidence from r and omised trials about the efficacy and safety of ablation in non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is limited .
OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of ablation ( catheter and surgical ) in people with non-paroxysmal ( persistent or long-st and ing persistent ) atrial fibrillation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs .