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 ?
Single procedure efficacy of isolating all versus arrhythmogenic pulmonary veins on long-term control of atrial fibrillation: a prospective randomized study.
BACKGROUND Current atrial fibrillation ( AF ) ablation involves isolation of all pulmonary veins ( PVs ) with or without additional linear lesions . However , whether such extensive ablation is necessary is unclear . OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of different ablation strategies on long-term AF control . METHODS We prospect ively r and omized patients to undergo isolation of all versus arrhythmogenic PVs ( identified by st and ardized stimulation protocol ) .  PV isolation was guided by circular mapping catheter . The endpoint was entry/exit block persisting for > or = 20 minutes . Patients were evaluated at three clinic visits ( at 6 weeks , 6 months , and 1 year ) and multiple transtelephonic monitoring periods . Antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued at 6 weeks . Primary study endpoint was long-term AF control ( freedom or > 90 % reduction in AF burden off or on previously ineffective antiarrhythmic drugs at 1 year after a single ablation procedure ) . RESULTS Over a 20-month period , 105 patients ( 76 men and 29 women , age 57 + /- 9 years ; paroxysmal AF = 77 ) were r and omized , and 103 patients completed 1-year follow-up ( 51 patients in all-PV arm , 52 patients in arrhythmogenic PV arm ) . The primary endpoint was achieved in 75 ( 73 % ) patients and was similar in patients r and omized to all-PV arm versus arrhythmogenic PV arm [ 38 ( 75 % ) patients vs 37 ( 71 % ) patients , respectively ; odds ratio 1.18 , 95 % confidence interval 0.50 , 2.83 , P = .70 ] . Secondary study endpoints , including freedom from AF off antiarrhythmic drugs , total procedure/fluoroscopy times , and occurrence of serious adverse events , were not different between the two groups . CONCLUSION In a r and omized comparison , isolation of arrhythmogenic veins was as efficacious as empiric isolation of all veins in achieving long-term AF control
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 ?