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 .
Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus—single center experience
Background and objective Little is known about the outcome of  catheter ablation of  atrial fibrillation ( AF )  in patients with diabetes mellitus ( DM ) . We investigated the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of AF  in patients with DM . Material s and methods Thirty one patients with DM from a group of 263 consecutive patients undergoing a first-time catheter ablation of AF procedure  were enrolled in a prospect i ve study . The ablation protocol ( guided by CARTO system ) consisted in two continuous circular lesions around ipsilateral pulmonary veins . Results The following clinical characteristics differed between DM and no-DM patients : age ( 62.0 ± 10.8 vs. 56.1 ± 10.6 years , P = 0.004 ) , longer AF history ( 9.6 ± 9.3 vs. 6.7 ± 6.3 years , P = 0.024 ) , significantly larger left atrium size ( 41.1 ± 7.8 vs. 38.3 ± 5.8 mm , P = 0.021 ) , hypertension ( 58.1 vs. 35.8 % , P = 0.018 ) and structural heart disease ( 67.7 vs. 43.5 % , P = 0.011 ) . Despite a similar AF recurrence rate in DM and no-DM patients ( 32.3 vs. 22.4 % , P = 0.240 ) , the ablation procedure was complicated in 28 patients ( 11 hematomas , three cardiac tamponades and three strokes ) and the incidence of complications was significantly higher in DM than in no-DM patients ( 29.0 vs. 8.2 % , respectively , P = 0.002 ) . Multivariate analysis showed that DM was an independent risk factor for complications occurrence ( odd ratio 5.936 , 95 % confidence interval 2.059 to 17.112 , P = 0.001 ) . Conclusions First catheter ablation of AF procedure in DM patients was equally efficacious than in no-DM patients . However , DM patients had a higher incidence of complications , mostly thrombotic or hemorrhagic
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 .