7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drugs as ‘first-line’ initial therapy for atrial fibrillation: a pooled analysis of randomized data

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          Catheter ablation (CA) is recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after failure of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The role of CA as ‘initial therapy’ for AF is to be determined.

          Methods and results

          Following PRISMA guideline an up-to-date pooled analysis of randomized data comparing ablation vs. AADs as first-line therapy for symptomatic AF was performed. The primary outcome was recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia. The secondary outcomes were improvement in quality-of-life (QoL) and major adverse events. A total of 997 patients from five randomized trials were enrolled (mean age 57.4 years, 68.6% male patients, 98% paroxysmal AF, mean follow-up 1.4 years). The baseline characteristics were similar between the ablation and AADs group. Overall pooled analysis showed that, as compared with AADs, CA as first-line therapy was associated with significantly higher freedom from arrhythmia recurrence (69% vs. 48%, odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval: 0.27–0.48, P < 0.001). This significance was maintained in subgroup analyses of 1- and 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Catheter ablation was associated with significantly greater improvement in QoL regarding AFEQT score and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score. The incidence of serious adverse events between ablation and AADs group (5.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.62) was similar.

          Conclusions

          Catheter ablation as ‘initial therapy’ was superior to AADs in maintenance of sinus rhythm and improving QoL for patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF, without increasing risk of serious adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            OUP accepted manuscript

            (2020)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

              There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality. A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic. Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients. Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                EP Europace
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1099-5129
                1532-2092
                December 01 2021
                December 07 2021
                August 18 2021
                December 01 2021
                December 07 2021
                August 18 2021
                : 23
                : 12
                : 1950-1960
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien (CCB), Kardiologie, Medizinische Klinik III, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Wilhelm-Epstein Straße 4, Frankfurt am Main 60431, Germany
                [2 ]Die Sektion Medizin, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
                [3 ]Department für Kardiologie und Elektrophysiologie, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus, Ordensklinikum Linz Elisabethinen, Linz, Austria
                [4 ]Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitäres Herz und Gefäßzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
                [5 ]School of Medicine-Royal Perth Hospital Unit, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
                [6 ]Department of Cardiology, cNEP, Cardiac Neuro- & Electrophysiology Research Group, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
                [7 ]DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany
                [8 ]Department of Cardiology, Evangelical Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
                [9 ]Heinrich-Heine-University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
                [10 ]St. Joseph’s Heart Rhythm Center, Rzeszów, Poland
                [11 ]Medizinisch-Geriatrische Klinik, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
                [12 ]Medizinische Abteilung mit Kardiologie, Krankenhaus Hietzing Wien, Vienna, Austria
                [13 ]Intensivmedizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [14 ]Department of Cardiology, AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium
                [15 ]Department of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
                [16 ]Department of Cardiology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
                [17 ]Klinik für Elektrophysiologie/Rhythmologie, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
                Article
                10.1093/europace/euab185
                34405878
                08bd1d25-cda5-481d-90ec-792ee2cc5928
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article