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 .
Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study)
Background Catheter ablation ( CA ) is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( AF ) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy ( ADT ) . No r and omized studies have compared the two strategies in persistent AF . The present r and omized trial aim ed to compare the effectiveness of CA vs. ADT in treating persistent AF . Methods and results Patients with persistent AF were r and omly assigned to CA or ADT ( excluding patients with long-st and ing persistent AF ) . Primary endpoint at 12-month follow-up was defined as any episode of AF or atrial flutter lasting > 24 h that occurred after a 3-month blanking period . Secondary endpoints were any atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting > 30 s , hospitalization , and electrical cardioversion . In total , 146 patients were included ( aged 55 ± 9 years , 77 % male ) . The ADT group received class Ic ( 43.8 % ) or class III drugs ( 56.3 % ) . In an intention-to-treat analysis , 69 of 98 patients ( 70.4 % ) in the CA group and 21 of 48 patients ( 43.7 % ) in the ADT group were free of the primary endpoint ( P = 0.002 ) , implying an absolute risk difference of 26.6 % ( 95 % CI 10.0–43.3 ) in favour of CA . The proportion of patients free of any recurrence ( > 30 s ) was higher in the CA group than in the ADT group ( 60.2 vs. 29.2 % ; P < 0.001 ) and cardioversion was less frequent ( 34.7 vs. 50 % , respectively ; P = 0.018 ) . Conclusion Catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF at 12-month follow-up . Clinical Trial Registration Information NCT00863213 ( http:// clinical trials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00863213 )
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 .