Dataset Information

Cryoballoon ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drugs: first-line therapy for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Treatment guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suggest that patients should be managed with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) before undergoing catheter ablation (CA). This study evaluated whether pulmonary vein isolation employing cryoballoon CA is superior to AAD therapy for the prevention of atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence in rhythm control naive patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).

Methods and results

A total of 218 treatment naive patients with symptomatic PAF were randomized (1 : 1) to cryoballoon CA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic) or AAD (Class I or III) and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was ≥1 episode of recurrent AA (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) >30 s after a prespecified 90-day blanking period. Secondary endpoints included the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) and recurrence of symptomatic palpitations (evaluated via patient diaries). Freedom from AA was achieved in 82.2% of subjects in the cryoballoon arm and 67.6% of subjects in the AAD arm (HR = 0.48, P = 0.01). There were no group differences in the time-to-first (HR = 0.76, P = 0.28) or overall incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.79, P = 0.28] of SAEs. The incidence rate of symptomatic palpitations was lower in the cryoballoon (7.61 days/year) compared with the AAD arm (18.96 days/year; IRR = 0.40, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Cryoballoon CA was superior to AAD therapy, significantly reducing AA recurrence in treatment naive patients with PAF. Additionally, cryoballoon CA was associated with lower symptom recurrence and a similar rate of SAEs compared with AAD therapy.

SUBMITTER: Kuniss M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8286851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEarly rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care; however, the optimal therapeutic modality to achieve early rhythm control is unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs in patients with paroxysmal AF.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and various major scientific conference sessions from January 1, 2000, through November 23, 2020.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 12 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of ablation vs AADs as first-line therapy in adults with AF. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, including 1212 patients.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently extracted data. Reporting was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Analysis was performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, and results are presented as 95% CIs.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs. Trials were evaluated as having low risk of selection and attrition biases, high risk of performance bias, and with unclear risk for detection biases due to unblinding and open-label designs.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 1212 patients with AF were included (609 were randomized to AF ablation and 603 to drug therapy; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years). Compared with AADs, catheter ablation use was associated with reductions in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (32.3% vs 53%; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74; P < .001; I2 = 40%), with a number needed to treat with ablation to prevent 1 arrhythmia of 5. Use of ablation was also associated with reduced symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (11.8% vs 26.4%; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.72; P = .001; I2 = 54%) and hospitalization (5.6% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53; P < .001) with no significant difference in serious adverse events between the groups (4.2% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.81-2.85; P = .19).Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials including first-line therapy of patients with paroxysmal AF, catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias and hospitalizations, with no difference in major adverse events.