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 .
Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.
CONTEXT Antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly used for prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation ( AF ) despite inconsistent efficacy and frequent adverse effects . Catheter ablation has been proposed as an alternative treatment for paroxysmal AF . OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy ( ADT ) in treating symptomatic paroxysmal AF . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS A prospect i ve , multicenter , r and omized ( 2:1 ) , unblinded , Bayesian- design ed study conducted at 19 hospitals of 167 patients who did not respond to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug and who experienced at least 3 AF episodes within 6 months before r and omization . Enrollment occurred between October 25 , 2004 , and October 11 , 2007 , with the last follow-up on January 19 , 2009 . INTERVENTION Catheter ablation ( n = 106 ) or ADT ( n = 61 ) , with assessment for effectiveness in a comparable 9-month follow-up period . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to protocol -defined treatment failure . The proportion of patients who experienced major treatment-related adverse events within 30 days of catheter ablation or ADT was also reported . RESULTS At the end of the 9-month effectiveness evaluation period , 66 % of patients in the catheter ablation group remained free from protocol -defined treatment failure compared with 16 % of patients treated with ADT . The hazard ratio of catheter ablation to ADT was 0.30 ( 95 % confidence interval , 0.19 - 0.47 ; P < .001 ) . Major 30-day treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 of 57 patients ( 8.8 % ) treated with ADT and 5 of 103 patients ( 4.9 % ) treated with catheter ablation .  Mean quality of life scores improved significantly in patients treated by catheter ablation compared with ADT at 3 months ; improvement was maintained during the course of the study . CONCLUSION Among patients with paroxysmal AF who had not responded to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug , the use of catheter ablation compared with ADT result ed in a longer time to treatment failure during the 9-month follow-up period . TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov Identifier : NCT00116428
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 .