Catheter Ablation as First-Line Therapy in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are considered a first-line rhythm-control strategy, whereas catheter ablation is a reasonable alternative. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the prevalence, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with PerAF who underwent catheter ablation as a first or second-line strategy. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included consecutive patients with PerAF who underwent first-time ablation between January 2020 and September 2021 in 9 medical centers in the United States. Patients were divided into those who underwent ablation as first-line therapy and those who had ablation as second-line therapy. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,083 patients underwent first-time ablation for PerAF. Of these, 1,086 (52%) underwent ablation as a first-line rhythm-control treatment. Compared with patients treated with AADs as first-line therapy, these patients were predominantly male (72.6% vs 68.1%; P = 0.03), with a lower frequency of hypertension (64.0% vs 73.4%; P < 0.001) and heart failure (19.1% vs 30.5%; P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 325.9 ± 81.6 days, arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the groups (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.92-1.41); however, patients in the second-line ablation strategy were more likely to continue receiving AAD therapy (41.5% vs 15.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A first-line ablation strategy for PerAF is prevalent in the United States, particularly in men with fewer comorbidities. More data are needed to identify patients with PerAF who derive benefit from an early intervention strategy.

The impact of catheter ablation in patient's heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Recent trial data suggest a benefit to catheter ablation (CA) compared to medical therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, because of mixed trial evidence, contemporary guidelines give it a class 2 recommendation. Accordingly, we sought to assess the currently available evidence for CA in HF with AF. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CA to medical therapy in patients with AF and HF. Study data was pooled using fixed and random effects, and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated to gauge absolute risk differences. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Nine trials (CA 1075 patients; medical therapy 1083 patients) were included. Ablation reduced the relative risk of all-cause mortality by 31.5% (95% CI 13.7 to 45.6%; NNT = 23), cardiovascular mortality by 39.3% (95% CI 10.9 to 58.7%; NNT = 31), cardiovascular hospitalization by 29.1% (95% CI 9.4 to 44.6%; NNT = 9), and heart failure hospitalization by 28.5% (95% CI 6.5 to 45.4%; NNT = 22). Improvements in quality of life were observed with CA using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference - 5.26; 95% CI - 2.73 to - 7.78) and the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (mean difference 5.36; 95% CI 2.72 to 8.00). CONCLUSION: Compared to medical therapy, CA for AF in patients with HF reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations, and may improve quality of life.