Chen Chen1,2, Xinbin Zhou1, Min Zhu1, Shenjie Chen1, Jie Chen1, Hongwen Cai1, Jin Dai1, Xiaoming Xu1, Wei Mao3. 1. Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. The First College of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. maoweilw@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The superiority of catheter ablation (CA) for persistent (and long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently not well defined. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical outcomes of CA compared with medical therapy in persistent AF patients. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for RCTs comparing CA with medical therapy in patients with persistent AF. For CA vs medical rhythm control, the primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia. For CA vs medical rate control, the primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 809 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with medical rhythm control, CA was superior in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia (RR 2.08, 95% CI [1.67, 2.58]; P < 0.00001). Similar result was found in CA arm without antiarrhythmic drug use after operation (RR 1.82, 95%CI [1.33, 2.49]; P = 0.0002). CA was also superior in reducing the probability of cardioversion (RR 0.59, 95%CI [0.46, 0.76]; P < 0.0001) and hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95%CI [0.39, 0.74]; P = 0.0002). Compared with the medical rate control in persistent AF patients with heart failure (HF), CA significantly improved the LVEF (MD 7.72, 95%CI [4.78, 10.67]; P < 0.00001) and reduced Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (MD 11.1395% CI [2.52-19.75]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CA appeared to be superior to medical therapy in persistent AF patients and might be considered as a first-line therapy for some persistent AF patients especially for those with HF.
PURPOSE: The superiority of catheter ablation (CA) for persistent (and long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently not well defined. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical outcomes of CA compared with medical therapy in persistent AFpatients. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for RCTs comparing CA with medical therapy in patients with persistent AF. For CA vs medical rhythm control, the primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia. For CA vs medical rate control, the primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 809 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with medical rhythm control, CA was superior in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia (RR 2.08, 95% CI [1.67, 2.58]; P < 0.00001). Similar result was found in CA arm without antiarrhythmic drug use after operation (RR 1.82, 95%CI [1.33, 2.49]; P = 0.0002). CA was also superior in reducing the probability of cardioversion (RR 0.59, 95%CI [0.46, 0.76]; P < 0.0001) and hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95%CI [0.39, 0.74]; P = 0.0002). Compared with the medical rate control in persistent AFpatients with heart failure (HF), CA significantly improved the LVEF (MD 7.72, 95%CI [4.78, 10.67]; P < 0.00001) and reduced Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (MD 11.1395% CI [2.52-19.75]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CA appeared to be superior to medical therapy in persistent AFpatients and might be considered as a first-line therapy for some persistent AFpatients especially for those with HF.
Entities:
Keywords:
Catheter ablation; Medical therapy; Meta-analysis; Persistent atrial fibrillation
Authors: Hakan Oral; Carlo Pappone; Aman Chugh; Eric Good; Frank Bogun; Frank Pelosi; Eric R Bates; Michael H Lehmann; Gabriele Vicedomini; Giuseppe Augello; Eustachio Agricola; Simone Sala; Vincenzo Santinelli; Fred Morady Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castella; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas; Stefan Agewall; John Camm; Gonzalo Baron Esquivias; Werner Budts; Scipione Carerj; Filip Casselman; Antonio Coca; Raffaele De Caterina; Spiridon Deftereos; Dobromir Dobrev; José M Ferro; Gerasimos Filippatos; Donna Fitzsimons; Bulent Gorenek; Maxine Guenoun; Stefan H Hohnloser; Philippe Kolh; Gregory Y H Lip; Athanasios Manolis; John McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Raphael Rosenhek; Frank Ruschitzka; Irina Savelieva; Sanjay Sharma; Piotr Suwalski; Juan Luis Tamargo; Clare J Taylor; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Adriaan A Voors; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Oussama M Wazni; Nassir F Marrouche; David O Martin; Atul Verma; Mandeep Bhargava; Walid Saliba; Dianna Bash; Robert Schweikert; Johannes Brachmann; Jens Gunther; Klaus Gutleben; Ennio Pisano; Dominico Potenza; Raffaele Fanelli; Antonio Raviele; Sakis Themistoclakis; Antonio Rossillo; Aldo Bonso; Andrea Natale Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ross J Hunter; Thomas J Berriman; Ihab Diab; Ravindu Kamdar; Laura Richmond; Victoria Baker; Farai Goromonzi; Vinit Sawhney; Edward Duncan; Stephen P Page; Waqas Ullah; Beth Unsworth; Jamil Mayet; Mehul Dhinoja; Mark J Earley; Simon Sporton; Richard J Schilling Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2014-01-01
Authors: David G Jones; Shouvik K Haldar; Wajid Hussain; Rakesh Sharma; Darrel P Francis; Shelley L Rahman-Haley; Theresa A McDonagh; S Richard Underwood; Vias Markides; Tom Wong Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Giovanni B Forleo; Massimo Mantica; Lucia De Luca; Roberto Leo; Luca Santini; Stefania Panigada; Valerio De Sanctis; Augusto Pappalardo; Francesco Laurenzi; Andrea Avella; Michela Casella; Antonio Dello Russo; Francesco Romeo; Gemma Pelargonio; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2008-09-03
Authors: Tommy Andersson; Anders Magnuson; Ing-Liss Bryngelsson; Ole Frøbert; Karin M Henriksson; Nils Edvardsson; Dritan Poçi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Guy Rozen; Gabby Elbaz-Greener; Ibrahim Marai; Nizar Andria; Seyed Mohammadreza Hosseini; Yitschak Biton; E Kevin Heist; Jeremy N Ruskin; Yulia Gavrilov; Shemy Carasso; Diab Ghanim; Offer Amir Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Vennela Boyalla; Leanne Harling; Alice Snell; Ines Kralj-Hans; Ana Barradas-Pires; Shouvik Haldar; Habib R Khan; John G F Cleland; Thanos Athanasiou; Sian E Harding; Tom Wong Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 6.138