J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2022 Sep 3. doi: 10.1007/s10840-022-01365-z. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent data have shown an advantage of rhythm control over rate control for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the data regarding efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with AF is lacking. Therefore, we sought to evaluate recurrence of arrhythmia, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, stroke/TIA, and all-cause readmissions of CA compared with AAD in patients with AF.
METHODS: Systematically searched through PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized control trials that compared CA and AAD in atrial fibrillation patients. Review Manager 5.4 and OpenMetaAnalyst were used to analyze the data. Data was pooled for the outcomes using random-effect models (DerSimonian and Laird) and reported as pooled odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS: A total of 4822 patients were included. The CA group had 2417 patients while the AAD group included 2405 patients. Pooled data demonstrated that the CA arm had a statistically significant decrease in risk for recurrence of arrhythmia as compared to AAD (OR 0.25; [95% CI, 0.18-0.36]; p < 0.001). All-cause readmission was statistically significantly lower in CA as compared to AAD (OR 0.33; [95%CI, 0.17-0.63]; p < 0.001). For other secondary outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between CA and AAD with regard to all-cause mortality (OR 0.75; [95% CI, 0.55-1.03]), cardiovascular death (OR 0.76; [95% CI, 0.22-2.54]), bleeding (OR 1.09, [95% CI 0.74, 1.61]), or stroke/TIA outcome (OR 0.90, [95% CI, 0.59-1.37]).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study of pooled data from 16 RCTs, CA utilization for atrial fibrillation had improved freedom from arrhythmia as well as reduced all-cause readmission compared with AAD.
PMID:36057733 | DOI:10.1007/s10840-022-01365-z
