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 ?
Randomized comparison of encircling and nonencircling left atrial ablation for chronic atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND Left atrial ( LA ) circumferential ablation has been reported to eliminate atrial fibrillation ( AF ) . Whether an ablation without encirclement of the pulmonary veins ( PVs ) is as effective as LA circumferential ablation is not clear . OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of LA circumferential ablation and nonencircling linear ablation in patients with chronic AF . METHODS Eighty patients with chronic AF were r and omized to undergo LA circumferential ablation ( n = 40 ) or nonencircling linear ablation ( n = 40 ) . In LA circumferential ablation , the PVs were encircled , with additional lines made in the mitral isthmus and posterior wall or roof . In nonencircling linear ablation , 4 + /- 1 ablation lines were created through areas of complex electrograms , with lines in the roof ( 38 ) , anterior wall ( 36 ) , septum ( 40 ) , mitral isthmus ( 32 ) , and posterior annulus ( 6 ) . The endpoint of LA circumferential ablation and nonencircling linear ablation was voltage abatement . RESULTS LA flutter occurred in 15 % after LA circumferential ablation and in 18 % after nonencircling linear ablation ( P = .8 ) . A repeat ablation procedure was performed for recurrent AF in 7 and 11 patients or for atrial flutter in 6 and 4 patients after LA circumferential ablation and nonencircling linear ablation , respectively ( P = .8 ) . At 9 + /- 4 months , the prevalence of AF was 28 % in the LA circumferential ablation and 25 % in the nonencircling linear ablation group ( P = .8 ) . Sixty-eight percent and 60 % of patients were in sinus rhythm and free of AF and atrial flutter in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug therapy after LA circumferential ablation and nonencircling linear ablation , respectively ( P = .5 ) . There were no complications . CONCLUSION Nonencircling linear ablation and LA circumferential ablation are equally efficacious in eliminating chronic AF . However , the advantage of nonencircling linear ablation is that it eliminates the need for ablation along the posterior wall of the LA . Therefore , nonencircling linear ablation may avoid the small but real risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation associated with LA circumferential ablation
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 ?