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 of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2: results from a randomized study comparing pulmonary vein isolation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
INTRODUCTION Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and diabetes mellitus type 2 ( DM2 ) often coexist ; however , a small number of patients with DM2 undergoing catheter ablation ( CA ) of AF  have been included in previous studies . The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of ablation therapy in DM2 patients with drug refractory AF . METHODS AND RESULTS From January 2005 to September 2006 , 70 patients with a diagnosis of DM2 and paroxysmal ( n = 29 ) or persistent ( n = 41 ) AF were r and omized to receive either pulmonary vein isolation or a new antiarrhythmic drug treatment ( ADT ) with a 1-year follow-up . The primary endpoint was the time to first AF recurrence . By Kaplan-Meier analysis , at the end of follow-up , 42.9 % of patients in the ADT group and 80 % of patients who received a single ablation procedure and were without medications were free of AF ( P = 0.001 ) . In the ablation group , a significant improvement in quality -of-life ( QoL ) scores as compared with ADT group was observed . Six patients in the ADT group ( 17.1 % ) developed significant adverse drug effects . Hospitalization rate during follow-up was higher in the ADT group ( P = 0.01 ) . The only complication attributable to ablation was one significant access-site hematoma . CONCLUSION In patients with DM2 , CA of AF provides significant clinical benefits over the ADT and appears to be a reasonable approach regarding feasibility , effectiveness , and low procedural risk
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 .