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 .
Radiofrequency ablation as initial therapy in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND There are limited data comparing radiofrequency catheter ablation with antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first-line treatment in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation . METHODS We r and omly assigned 294 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and no history of antiarrhythmic drug use to an initial treatment strategy of either  radiofrequency catheter ablation  ( 146 patients ) or therapy with class IC or class III antiarrhythmic agents ( 148 patients ) . Follow-up included 7-day Holter-monitor recording at 3 , 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 months . Primary end points were the cumulative and per-visit burden of atrial fibrillation ( i.e. , percentage of time in atrial fibrillation on Holter-monitor recordings ) . Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis . RESULTS There was no significant difference between the ablation and drug-therapy groups in the cumulative burden of atrial fibrillation ( 90th percentile of arrhythmia burden , 13 % and 19 % , respectively ; P=0.10 ) or the burden at 3 , 6 , 12 , or 18 months . At 24 months , the burden of atrial fibrillation was significantly lower in the ablation group than in the drug-therapy group ( 90th percentile , 9 % vs. 18 % ; P=0.007 ) , and more patients in the ablation group were free from any atrial fibrillation ( 85 % vs. 71 % , P=0.004 ) and from symptomatic atrial fibrillation ( 93 % vs. 84 % , P=0.01 ) . One death in the ablation group was due to a procedure-related stroke ; there were three cases of cardiac tamponade in the ablation group . In the drug-therapy group , 54 patients ( 36 % ) underwent supplementary ablation . CONCLUSIONS In comparing radiofrequency ablation with antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first-line treatment in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation , we found no significant difference between the treatment groups in the cumulative burden of atrial fibrillation over a period of 2 years . ( Funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and others ; MANTRA-PAF Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00133211 . )
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 .