Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation versus Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients with Tachycardia-Bradycardia Syndrome

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives@#Pacemaker (PM) implantation is a well-accepted treatment option for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and related tachycardiabradycardia syndrome (TBS). Data on the long-term clinical outcomes after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) or PM implantation are sparse. @*Methods@#The medical records of 217 patients with TBS were retrospectively assessed.Outcomes in patients who underwent RFCA (n=108, 49.8%) were compared to those with PM implantation (n=109, 50.2%). The clinical outcomes were sinus rhythm maintenance, conversion to persistent AF, additional procedure or crossover, and the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death. @*Results@#During the follow-up period (mean 3.5±2.0 years), the RFCA group, compared to the PM group, showed better sinus rhythm maintenance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.27;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.46; p=0.002) and less progression to persistent AF (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.63; p=0.006). Additional procedure or crossover did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.71–6.06; p=0.185 and aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 10.8–2.67; p=0.590, respectively). Most RFCA patients (92.6%) did not require pacemaker implantation during long term follow-up period (>3.5 years). The composite endpoint of cardiovascular rehospitalization and death was not significantly different between the groups (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50–1.66; p=0.769).Background and Objectives: Pacemaker (PM) implantation is a well-accepted treatment option for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and related tachycardiabradycardia syndrome (TBS). Data on the long-term clinical outcomes after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) or PM implantation are sparse. @*Methods@#The medical records of 217 patients with TBS were retrospectively assessed.Outcomes in patients who underwent RFCA (n=108, 49.8%) were compared to those with PM implantation (n=109, 50.2%). The clinical outcomes were sinus rhythm maintenance, conversion to persistent AF, additional procedure or crossover, and the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death. @*Results@#During the follow-up period (mean 3.5±2.0 years), the RFCA group, compared to the PM group, showed better sinus rhythm maintenance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.27;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.46; p=0.002) and less progression to persistent AF (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.63; p=0.006). Additional procedure or crossover did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.71–6.06; p=0.185 and aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 10.8–2.67; p=0.590, respectively). Most RFCA patients (92.6%) did not require pacemaker implantation during long term follow-up period (>3.5 years). The composite endpoint of cardiovascular rehospitalization and death was not significantly different between the groups (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50–1.66; p=0.769). @*Conclusions@#RFCA is an effective alternative to PM implantation in patients with TBS.In these patients, successful RF ablation of AF is related to a higher rate of sinus rhythm maintenance compared to PM implantation, and the composite outcome of cardiovascular rehospitalization and death is similar.