Contribution This systematic review found that radiofrequency ablation after a failed drug course maintained sinus rhythm more often than continuation of drug therapy alone .
The benefits of maintaining sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic drugs appeared to be offset by the serious adverse effects of the drugs .
Context Is radiofrequency catheter ablation a better alternative than medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation ?
The Editors Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice ( 1 ) .
Its prevalence increases with age , from 0.1 % in people younger than 55 years to more than 9 % by 80 years of age ( 2 ) .
The heavy burden of atrial fibrillation on morbidity , mortality , and health care re sources creates a pressing need for novel approaches to management .
In some patients , adequate pharmacologic slowing of the ventricular response rate ( a rate-control strategy ) is sufficient to control symptoms .
However , many patients remain symptomatic from the lack of organized atrial contraction and the persistent irregularity of the ventricular response in atrial fibrillation .
In such patients , the appropriate treatment is restoration of normal sinus rhythm , achieved electrically or chemically ( a rhythm-control strategy ) ( 2 ) .
Radiofrequency catheter ablation is a promising approach that offers the benefits of maintaining sinus rhythm without the adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs .
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is based on the underst and ing that electrical activity emanating from the pulmonary veins frequently serves as a trigger for atrial fibrillation .
In the late 1990s , Hassaguerre and colleagues ( 5 ) observed that elimination of local electrograms at these foci with radiofrequency energy reduced the risk for recurrence of atrial fibrillation .
Currently , the foundation of most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures is to target and electrically isolate the pulmonary veins ( 6 ) .
This may be achieved by delivering lesions immediately outside the ostia of the pulmonary veins or along a wider area in the left atrium encircling the veins .
Additional lesion sets have been used to ablate nonpulmonary vein triggers of atrial fibrillation and to target atrial areas thought to be responsible for maintaining atrial fibrillation ( 6 ) .
These linear lesions may be created in the posterior left atrium , the roof of the left atrium , the interatrial septum , and the isthmus formed between the mitral annulus and the pulmonary vein or left atrial appendage .
At present , the Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation , put forth by the Heart Rhythm Society and endorsed by several professional organizations , states that the foundation of most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures is to target the pulmonary veins , pulmonary vein antra , or both ( 6 ) .
The panel advised us that 8-mmtip and irrigated-tip catheters are now the catheters of choice for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States .
The conventional 4-mmtip catheter is rapidly being phased out of use for this indication .
The following 3 key questions were formulated : 1 .
What is the effect of radiofrequency catheter ablation on short-term ( 6 to 12 months ) and long-term ( > 12 months ) rhythm control ; rates of congestive heart failure ; changes in the size of the left atrium and ventricle ; rates of stroke ; quality of life ; avoiding anticoagulation ; and readmissions for paroxysmal , persistent , and long-st and ing persistent ( chronic ) atrial fibrillation ?
2 .
How does the effect of radiofrequency ablation  on rhythm control differ among the various techniques used ?
3 .
What are the short- and long-term complications and harms associated with radiofrequency ablation ?
Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study
Background — The mainstay of treatment for atrial fibrillation ( AF ) remains pharmacological ; however , catheter ablation has increasingly been used over the last decade . The relative merits of each strategy have not been extensively studied . Methods and Results — We conducted a r and omized multicenter comparison of these 2 treatment strategies in patients with paroxysmal AF resistant to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug . The primary end point was absence of recurrent AF between months 3 and 12 , absence of recurrent AF after up to 3 ablation procedures , or changes in antiarrhythmic drugs during the first 3 months . Ablation consisted of pulmonary vein isolation in all cases , whereas additional extrapulmonary vein lesions were at the discretion of the physician . Crossover was permitted at 3 months in case of failure . Echocardiographic data , symptom score , exercise capacity , quality of life , and AF burden were evaluated at 3 , 6 , and 12 months by the supervising committee . Of 149 eligible patients , 112 ( 18 women [ 16 % ] ; age , 51.1±11.1 years ) were enrolled and r and omized to ablation ( n=53 ) or “ new ” antiarrhythmic drugs alone or in combination ( n=59 ) . Crossover from the antiarrhythmic drugs and ablation groups occurred in 37 ( 63 % ) and 5 patients ( 9 % ) , respectively ( P=0.0001 ) . At the 1-year follow-up , 13 of 55 patients ( 23 % ) and 46 of 52 patients ( 89 % ) had no recurrence of AF in the antiarrhythmic drug and ablation groups , respectively ( P<0.0001 ) . Symptom score , exercise capacity , and quality of life were significantly higher in the ablation group . Conclusion — This r and omized multicenter study demonstrates the superiority of catheter ablation over antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with AF with regard to maintenance of sinus rhythm and improvement in symptoms , exercise capacity , and quality of life
Contribution This systematic review found that radiofrequency ablation after a failed drug course maintained sinus rhythm more often than continuation of drug therapy alone .
The benefits of maintaining sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic drugs appeared to be offset by the serious adverse effects of the drugs .
Context Is radiofrequency catheter ablation a better alternative than medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation ?
The Editors Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice ( 1 ) .
Its prevalence increases with age , from 0.1 % in people younger than 55 years to more than 9 % by 80 years of age ( 2 ) .
The heavy burden of atrial fibrillation on morbidity , mortality , and health care re sources creates a pressing need for novel approaches to management .
In some patients , adequate pharmacologic slowing of the ventricular response rate ( a rate-control strategy ) is sufficient to control symptoms .
However , many patients remain symptomatic from the lack of organized atrial contraction and the persistent irregularity of the ventricular response in atrial fibrillation .
In such patients , the appropriate treatment is restoration of normal sinus rhythm , achieved electrically or chemically ( a rhythm-control strategy ) ( 2 ) .
Radiofrequency catheter ablation is a promising approach that offers the benefits of maintaining sinus rhythm without the adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs .
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is based on the underst and ing that electrical activity emanating from the pulmonary veins frequently serves as a trigger for atrial fibrillation .
In the late 1990s , Hassaguerre and colleagues ( 5 ) observed that elimination of local electrograms at these foci with radiofrequency energy reduced the risk for recurrence of atrial fibrillation .
Currently , the foundation of most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures is to target and electrically isolate the pulmonary veins ( 6 ) .
This may be achieved by delivering lesions immediately outside the ostia of the pulmonary veins or along a wider area in the left atrium encircling the veins .
Additional lesion sets have been used to ablate nonpulmonary vein triggers of atrial fibrillation and to target atrial areas thought to be responsible for maintaining atrial fibrillation ( 6 ) .
These linear lesions may be created in the posterior left atrium , the roof of the left atrium , the interatrial septum , and the isthmus formed between the mitral annulus and the pulmonary vein or left atrial appendage .
At present , the Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation , put forth by the Heart Rhythm Society and endorsed by several professional organizations , states that the foundation of most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures is to target the pulmonary veins , pulmonary vein antra , or both ( 6 ) .
The panel advised us that 8-mmtip and irrigated-tip catheters are now the catheters of choice for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States .
The conventional 4-mmtip catheter is rapidly being phased out of use for this indication .
The following 3 key questions were formulated : 1 .
What is the effect of radiofrequency catheter ablation on short-term ( 6 to 12 months ) and long-term ( > 12 months ) rhythm control ; rates of congestive heart failure ; changes in the size of the left atrium and ventricle ; rates of stroke ; quality of life ; avoiding anticoagulation ; and readmissions for paroxysmal , persistent , and long-st and ing persistent ( chronic ) atrial fibrillation ?
2 .
How does the effect of radiofrequency ablation  on rhythm control differ among the various techniques used ?
3 .
What are the short- and long-term complications and harms associated with radiofrequency ablation ?