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 .
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure (The CAMTAF Trial)
Background —Restoring sinus rhythm in patients with heart failure ( HF ) and atrial fibrillation ( AF ) may improve left ventricular ( LV ) function and HF symptoms . We sought to compare the effect of a catheter ablation strategy with that of a medical rate control strategy in patients with persistent AF and HF . Methods and Results — Patients with persistent AF , symptomatic HF , and LV ejection fraction < 50 % were r and omized to catheter ablation or medical rate control . The primary end-point was the difference between groups in LV ejection fraction at 6 months . Baseline LV ejection fraction was 32±8 % in the ablation group and 34±12 % in the medical group . Twenty-six patients underwent catheter ablation  , and 24 patients were rate controlled .  Freedom from AF was achieved in 21/26 ( 81 % ) at 6 months off antiarrhythmic drugs . LV ejection fraction at 6 months in the ablation group was 40±12 % compared with 31±13 % in the rate control group ( P=0.015 ) . Ablation was associated with better peak oxygen consumption ( 22±6 versus 18±6 mL/kg per minute ; P=0.014 ) and Minnesota living with HF question naire score ( 24±22 versus 47±22 ; P=0.001 ) compared with rate control . Conclusions —Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in selected patients with persistent AF and HF , and can improve LV function , functional capacity , and HF symptoms compared with rate control . Clinical Trial Registration —URL : http://www . clinical trials.gov . Unique identifier :
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 .