Three-month lower-dose flecainide after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Blanking period antiarrhythmic drugs after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are frequently prescribed following catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, to date, there is a lack of large-scale, multicenter controlled studies that have confirmed the efficacy of AADs in reducing the incidence of late recurrence of AF after CA. Furthermore, the optimal duration of short-term use of AADs after CA remains a controversial topic.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until April 25, 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of blanking period AADs in predicting both early and late recurrence of AF. In addition, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence in this meta-analysis.

Results

12 RCTs with 3,625 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Short-term use of AADs after AF ablation reduced the risk of early recurrence of AF compared with the no-AADs group. In the subgroup analysis of AADs use time, it was found that only using AADs for more than 2 months can reduce the early recurrence of AF after CA. However, when compared with the no-AADs group, short-term use of AADs after CA did not reduce the incidence of late recurrence of AF.

Conclusions

Short-term use of AADs (more than 2 months) can reduce the early recurrence but not the late recurrence of AF after CA.

Oral Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs for maintaining sinus rhythm after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATa) following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been used shortly after ablation in an attempt to maintain sinus rhythm, particularly Class I and III agents. However, it still needs to be established if the use of Class I or III antiarrhythmic medications, or both, reduce the risk of recurrence of ATa.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs versus control (standard medical therapy without Class I or III antiarrhythmics, or placebo) for maintaining sinus rhythm in people undergoing catheter ablation for AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and two clinical trial registers without restrictions on language or date to 5 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought published, unpublished, and ongoing parallel-design, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult participants undergoing ablation for AF, with subsequent comparison of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use versus control (standard medical therapy or non-Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and performed meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratios (Peto OR). Our primary outcomes were recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias; adverse events: thromboembolic events; adverse events: myocardial infarction; adverse events: new diagnosis of heart failure; and adverse events: requirement for one or more hospitalisations for atrial tachyarrhythmia. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; and requirement for one or more repeat ablations. Where possible, we performed comparison analysis by Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic and divided follow-up periods for our primary outcome. We performed comprehensive assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs involving a total of 3269 participants. Participants were on average 59.3 years old; 71.0% were male; and 72.9% and 27.4% had paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may reduce recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3 months postablation (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.94, 8 trials, 3046 participants, low-certainty evidence) and likely reduce recurrence at > 3 to 6 months, our a priori primary time point (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93, 5 trials, 2591 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Beyond six months the evidence is very uncertain, and the benefit of antiarrhythmics may not persist (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55, 4 trials, 2244 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may not increase the risk of thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, or requirement for repeat ablation, at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (where data were available; low- to very low-certainty evidence). The use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics postablation likely reduces hospitalisations for ATa by approximately 57% at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64, moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available beyond three months. No data were available on new diagnoses of heart failure. Fewer data were available for Class I and III antiarrhythmics individually. Based on only one and two trials (n = 125 to 309), Class I antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20, 2 trials, 309 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.19, 1 trial, 125 participants; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.32, 1 trial, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence throughout); requirement for hospitalisation for ATa at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence); or requirement for repeat ablation at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence). No data were available for thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, new diagnosis of heart failure, or all-cause mortality at any time points, or hospitalisation or repeat ablation beyond three months. Class III antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at up to 3 months and at > 3 to 6 months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 4 trials, 599 participants, low-certainty evidence; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09, 2 trials, 318 participants, low-certainty evidence), and beyond 6 months one trial reported a possible increase in recurrence of ATa (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.94, 1 trial, 112 participants, low-certainty evidence). Class III antiarrhythmics likely reduce hospitalisations for ATa at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little effect on all-cause mortality (low- to very low-certainty evidence). The effect of Class III antiarrhythmics on thromboembolic events and requirement for repeat ablation was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No data were available for myocardial infarction or new diagnosis of heart failure at any time point, outcomes other than recurrence beyond 6 months, or for hospitalisation and repeat ablation > 3 to 6 months. We assessed the majority of included trials as at low or unclear risk of bias. One trial reported an error in the randomisation process, raising the potential risk of selection bias; most of the included trials were non-blinded; and two trials were at high risk of attrition bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence to suggest that the use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics up to 3 months after ablation is associated with a reduced recurrence of ATa 0 to 6 months after ablation, which may not persist beyond 6 months, and an immediate reduction in hospitalisation for ATa 0 to 3 months after ablation. The evidence suggests there is no difference in rates of all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, or myocardial infarction between Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics versus control.

Association between specific antiarrhythmic drug prescription in the post-procedural blanking period and recurrent atrial arrhythmias after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

To evaluate if specific AADs prescribed in the blanking period (BP) after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated with reduced risk of early recurrence (ER) and/or late recurrence (LR) of atrial arrhythmias.

METHODS

A total of 478 patients undergoing first-time ablation at a single institution were included. Outcomes were: ER, LR, discontinuation of AAD less than 90 days post-ablation, and second ablation. ER was defined as AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT) > 30 seconds within BP. LR was defined as AF/AFL/AT > 30 seconds after BP.

RESULTS

Of 478 patients, 14.9% were prescribed no AAD, 26.4% propafenone/flecainide, 34.5% sotalol/dofetilide, 10.7% dronedarone, and 13.6% amiodarone. Patients prescribed amiodarone were more likely to have persistent AF, hypertension, diabetes, and other comorbidities. In unadjusted analyses, there were no differences between groups in relation to ER (log rank P = 0.171), discontinuation of AAD before ninety days post-ablation (log rank P = 0.235), or freedom from second ablation (log rank P = 0.147). After multivariable adjustment, patients prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD [Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1.83, 95% CI 1.10-3.04, p = 0.02; AHR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05-3.05, p = 0.03, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Following first-time catheter ablation, there were no differences between specific AAD prescription and risk of ER, while those prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone in the BP were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD, which may represent an association due to confounding by indication.

Knots to untie: anticoagulant and antiarrhythmic therapy after ablation for atrial fibrillation

The continuation or otherwise of anticoagulant and antiarrhythmic therapy after ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the main aspects still to be defined in the electrophysiological field. The currently available data do not allow the assumption of certain positions due to the lack of randomized studies on the subject. With regard to anticoagulant therapy, however, the suggestion of the guidelines to assess more the risk profile than the result of the ablation and consequently to prescribe anticoagulant treatment to all patients with CHADSVASc ≥2 seems acceptable. Its use in the first two or three months after the procedure appears reasonable; however, keeping in mind that the objective of this strategy is limited to the prevention of early recurrences only. More prolonged use of antiarrhythmics seems to be more promising, but further data are necessary before it can be recommended routinely. The ablation of AF is a therapy that is widely spreading and its use is continuously growing. Since it is a recently introduced method, not everything is still clear about it. The continuation or not of anticoagulant and antiarrhythmic therapy after ablation for AF is one of the main aspects yet to be defined.

Redefining the Blanking Period After Catheter Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the ADVICE (Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination) Trial

BACKGROUND

Early recurrences (ERs) of atrial tachyarrhythmia are common after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. A 3-month blanking period is recommended by current guidelines. This study sought to investigate the significance of ER during the first 3 months post ablation in predicting late recurrences and determine whether it varies according to timing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 401 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation were followed for 12 months with transtelephonic monitoring in the ADVICE (Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination) trial. Patients with atrial tachyarrhythmia ≥30 s within the 3-month blanking period were stratified according to the timing of ER. A total of 179 patients (44.6%) experienced their last episode of ER during the first (n=53), second (n=44), or third (n=82) month of the 3-month blanking period. One-year freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia was 77.2% in patients without ER compared with 62.6%, 36.4%, and 7.8% in patients with ER 1, 2, and 3 months post ablation, respectively (P<0.0001). Receiver operating curve analyses revealed a strong correlation between the timing of ER and late recurrence (area under the curve 0.82, P<0.0001). Corresponding hazard ratios for ER during the first, second, and third months were 1.84, 4.45, and 9.64, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validates the use of a blanking period after catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation but calls into question the 90-day cut-off value. In particular, >90% of patients with ER during the third month post ablation experience late recurrence by 1 year. However, pending further study, repeat ablation before 90 days cannot be routinely advocated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01058980.

Antiarrhythmic therapy as an adjuvant to promote post pulmonary vein isolation success-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Three months of empirical antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy after atrial fibrillation ablation (AFA) is a common practice to prevent early arrhythmia recurrence; the data of influence of this practice on longer term ablation outcomes is limited.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of published controlled trials comparing temporary AAD therapy after AFA with no AAD therapy in patients after AFA. The primary outcome was recurrence of arrhythmia.

RESULTS

1Eight prospective trials were included. Among 2952 patients, 1991 (67 %) had paroxysmal AF, and 967 (32.7 %) had persistent AF. In total, 1502 patients were treated with AADs and 1450 patients served as a control group (no AAD therapy). Various class IC-III antiarrhythmics were used. Length of AAD administration varied between 6 and 12 weeks after start of AFA. The follow-up duration ranged from 1.5 to 17 months after stopping medication. Among AAD treated patients, the recurrence of arrhythmia rate was 30.69 vs. 33.79 % in control patients (odd ratio 0.86, 95 % CI 0.71-1.06, P = 0.15). In patients who received largely amiodarone, there was a trend for difference in recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (odds ratio 0.60, 95 % CI 0.34-1.09, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term post pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) AAD therapy does not substantially reduce overall recurrence of AF after ablation.

Short-term Antiarrhythmic Drugs After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The incidence of recurrent arrhythmia after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is unacceptable. Short-term antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment following CA was presumed to be effective in reducing recurrent arrhythmia.

OBJECTIVE

To fully evaluate the efficacy of short-term use of AADs following CA for AF in preventing recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up until May 1, 2016. We enrolled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of short-term use of AADs following CA for AF in preventing early and/or late recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias. The statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in this analysis, involving a total of 2764 patients. The frequency of early recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias was 39.5% in the AAD group (556 of 1407) and 47.2% (640 of 1357) in the control group. The pooled risk ratio of the AAD group to the control group was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.62-0.98). Regarding late recurrence of AF (LRAF), the incidence in the AAD group and the control group was 32.5% (420 of 1293) and 34.6% (450 of 1300), respectively. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups (relative risk = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.85-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term use of AADs following CA for AF reduced the incidence of early recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias but did not prevent LRAF.

Efficacy of Short-Term Antiarrhythmic Drugs Use after Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation-A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

The efficacy of short-term antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) use compared with no-AADs prescription after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in preventing atrial arrhythmia recurrence is uncertain.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through December 2015 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy of short-term AADs use compared with no-AADs prescription after AF ablation in preventing atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The primary outcome was labeled as early atrial arrhythmia recurrence within 3 months after ablation. Secondary outcome was defined as late recurrence after 3 months of ablation. Random-effects model or fixed-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Six RCTs with 2,667 patients were included into this meta-analysis. Compared with no-AADs administration after AF ablation, short-term AADs use was associated with significant reduction of early atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52–0.87; p = 0.003). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) showed that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, establishing sufficient and conclusive evidence. However, compared with no-AADs prescription, short-term AADs use after AF ablation didn’t significantly reduce the risk of late atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83–1.03; p = 0.15). TSA supported this result; meanwhile the estimated required information size (1,486 patients) was also met.

Conclusion

Short-term use of AADs after AF ablation can significantly decrease the risk of early atrial arrhythmia recurrence but not lead to corresponding reduction in risk of late atrial arrhythmia recurrence.

Administration of antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether the short-term administration of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm following catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) can prevent the recurrence of AF is still a matter of debate. We searched the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library, and compiled a list of retrieved articles. We included only randomised controlled trials(RCTs) that compared any AADs against control (placebo or no treatment) or other AADs following CA for AF. Statistical analysis of the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to determine the overall effect of both outcomes. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of the outcomes of AF recurrence into fixed effect model meta-analyses.

AIMS

We performed a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of short-term treatment with AADs on the recurrence of AF after CA.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in this study, with a total of 814 patients. Post-procedural temporary administration of AADs in patients after CA for AF reduced the early recurrence of AF (antiarrhythmic drug 103 patients [25.3%], control 162 patients [39.8%]; OR 0.47 [95% CI 0.34-0.64]; χ(2)  = 3.77; P = 0.58; I(2)  = 0%). No significant difference in patients after CA for AF in the late recurrence of AF (antiarrhythmic drug 148 patients [36.5%], control 171 patients [42.5%]; OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.57-1.03]; χ(2)  = 3.15; P = 0.68; I(2)  = 0%). The heterogeneity was zero in both analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although the continued administration of AADs after CA for AF can decrease early atrial tachycardias (ATa), this treatment does not prevent late ATa.

Electrophysiological Perspectives on Hybrid Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

To overcome limitations of minimally invasive surgical ablation as a standalone procedure in eliminating atrial fibrillation (AF), hybrid approaches incorporating adjunctive endovascular catheter ablation have been proposed in recent years. The endovascular component targets residual conduction gaps and identifies additional electrophysiological targets with the goal of minimizing recurrent atrial arrhythmia. We performed a systematic review of published studies of hybrid AF ablation, analyzing 432 pooled patients (19% paroxysmal, 29% persistent, 52% long-standing persistent) treated using three different approaches: A. bilateral thoracoscopy with bipolar radiofrequency (RF) clamp-based approach; B. right thoracoscopic suction monopolar RF catheter-based approach; and C. subxiphoid posterior pericardioscopic ("convergent") approach. Freedom from recurrence off antiarrhythmic medications at 12 months was seen in 88.1% [133/151] for A, 73.4% [47/64] for B, and 59.3% [80/135] for C, with no significant difference between paroxysmal (76.9%) and persistent/long-standing persistent AF (73.4%). Death and major surgical complications were reported in 8.5% with A, 0% with B and 8.6% with C. A critical appraisal of hybrid ablation is presented, drawing from experiences and insights published over the years on catheter ablation of AF, with a discussion of the rationale underlying hybrid ablation, its strengths and limitations, where it may have a unique role in clinical management of patients with AF, which questions remain unanswered and areas for further investigation.

Efficacy of Antiarrhythmic Drugs Short-Term Use After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation (EAST-AF) trial

AIMS

Substantial portion of early arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is considered to be due to irritability in left atrium (LA) from the ablation procedure. We sought to evaluate whether 90-day use of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) following AF ablation could reduce the incidence of early arrhythmia recurrence and thereby promote reverse remodelling of LA, leading to improved long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 2038 patients who had undergone radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal, persistent, or long-lasting AF were randomly assigned to either 90-day use of Vaughan Williams class I or III AAD (1016 patients) or control (1022 patients) group. The primary endpoint was recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting for >30 s or those requiring repeat ablation, hospital admission, or usage of class I or III AAD at 1 year, following the treatment period of 90 days post ablation. Patients assigned to AAD were associated with significantly higher event-free rate from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias when compared with the control group during the treatment period of 90 days [59.0 and 52.1%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.96; P = 0.01]. However, there was no significant difference in the 1-year event-free rates from the primary endpoint between the groups (69.5 and 67.8%, respectively; adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Short-term use of AAD for 90 days following AF ablation reduced the incidence of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias during the treatment period, but it did not lead to improved clinical outcomes at the later phase.

What can rhythm control therapy contribute to prognosis in atrial fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a global healthcare problem of growing prevalence and major significance. The consequences of AF include an increased rate of death, stroke and heart failure. Theoretically, a therapeutic strategy aiming at restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm should offset the prognosis impairment associated with AF. However, these expectations were disproven in large randomised controlled trials comparing conventional antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm control with conventional rate control. These apparently contradictory findings suggest that rhythm control strategies require better therapeutic instruments. These improvements may involve drugs and/or interventions with optimised risk-benefit profile and which also appreciate the specific atrial pathology and the patient's comorbidities. This article addresses important aspects of rhythm control strategies, which may have the potential of a beneficial contribution to the prognosis of AF patients.

Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

New evidence about first-line radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) has emerged. In a single study the comparative treatment effect is potentially diminished by the high rate of cross-over to the alternative therapy. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA vs. antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing RFA and AAD therapy as first-line treatment of AF in August 2014. Three studies with 491 patients with recurrent symptomatic AF were included. The patients were relatively young and the majority of them had paroxysmal AF (98.7%) and no major comorbidity. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was associated with significantly higher freedom from AF recurrence compared with AAD therapy [risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.92, P = 0.02]. The difference in the rate of symptomatic AF recurrences was not statistically significant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.08, P = 0.09). There was one procedure-related death and seven tamponades with RFA, whereas symptomatic bradycardia was more frequent with AAD therapy.

CONCLUSION

Radiofrequency catheter ablation seems to be more effective than medical therapy as first-line treatment of paroxysmal AF in relatively young and otherwise healthy patients, but may also cause more severe adverse effects. These findings support the use of RFA as first-line therapy in selected patients, who understand the benefits and risks of the procedure.

Recurrence of arrhythmia following short-term oral AMIOdarone after CATheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (AMIO-CAT trial)

AIMS

Patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) often experience recurrent arrhythmias within the first few months post-ablation. We aimed to investigate whether short-term use of amiodarone to prevent early arrhythmias following radiofrequency ablation for AF could reduce later recurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a two-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomized a total of 212 patients undergoing AF ablation. Patients were stratified according to type of AF (paroxysmal/persistent) and history of previous AF ablation and randomly assigned to 8 weeks of oral amiodarone therapy or matched placebo following catheter ablation. Patients were followed for 6 months. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Of 212 enrolled patients [median age 61 (inter-quartile range 54-66), 83% male, 50% paroxysmal, 29% with history of previous ablation], 206 patients were available for analysis of the primary end-point which was any documented atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting >30 s following a blanking period of 3 months. This was observed in 42/107 (39%) in the amiodarone group vs. 48/99 (48%) in the placebo group (P = 0.18). Among the secondary end-points, the amiodarone group showed significantly lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia-related hospitalizations [rate ratio = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23-0.77, P = 0.006] and cardioversions (rate ratio = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.20-0.62, P = 0.0004) within the blanking period.

CONCLUSION

Short-term oral amiodarone treatment following ablation for paroxysmal or persistent AF did not significantly reduce recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias at the 6-month follow-up, but it more than halved atrial arrhythmia related hospitalization and cardioversion rates during the blanking period.