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 trial to assess catheter ablation versus rate control in the management of persistent atrial fibrillation in heart failure.
OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare catheter ablation with rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation ( AF ) in heart failure ( HF ) . BACKGROUND The optimal therapy for AF in HF is unclear . Drug-based rhythm control has not proved clinical ly beneficial . Catheter ablation improves cardiac function in patients with HF , but impact on physiological performance has not been formally evaluated in a r and omized trial . METHODS In a r and omized , open-label , blinded-endpoint clinical trial , adults with symptomatic HF , radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction ( EF ) ≤35 % , and persistent AF were assigned to undergo catheter ablation or rate control . Primary outcome was 12-month change in peak oxygen consumption . Secondary endpoints were quality of life , B-type natriuretic peptide , 6-min walk distance , and EF . Results were analyzed by intention-to-treat . RESULTS Fifty-two patients ( age 63 ± 9 years , EF 24 ± 8 % ) were r and omized , 26 each to ablation and rate control . At 12 months , 88 % of ablation patients maintained sinus rhythm ( single-procedure success 68 % ) . Under rate control , rate criteria were achieved in 96 % . The primary endpoint , peak oxygen consumption , significantly increased in the ablation arm compared with rate control ( difference + 3.07 ml/kg/min , 95 % confidence interval : 0.56 to 5.59 , p = 0.018 ) . The change was not evident at 3 months ( + 0.79 ml/kg/min , 95 % confidence interval : -1.01 to 2.60 , p = 0.38 ) . Ablation improved Minnesota score ( p = 0.019 ) and B-type natriuretic peptide ( p = 0.045 ) and showed nonsignificant trends toward improved 6-min walk distance ( p = 0.095 ) and EF ( p = 0.055 ) . CONCLUSIONS This first r and omized trial of ablation versus rate control to focus on objective exercise performance in AF and HF shows significant benefit from ablation , a strategy that also improves symptoms and neurohormonal status . The effects develop over 12 months , consistent with progressive amelioration of the HF syndrome . ( A R and omised Trial to Assess Catheter Ablation Versus Rate Control in the Management of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure ; NCT00878384 )
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 .