Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Aims: New evidence about first-line radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) has emerged. In a single study the comparative treatment effect is potentially diminished by the high rate of cross-over to the alternative therapy. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA vs. antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs).

Methods and results: Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing RFA and AAD therapy as first-line treatment of AF in August 2014. Three studies with 491 patients with recurrent symptomatic AF were included. The patients were relatively young and the majority of them had paroxysmal AF (98.7%) and no major comorbidity. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was associated with significantly higher freedom from AF recurrence compared with AAD therapy [risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.92, P = 0.02]. The difference in the rate of symptomatic AF recurrences was not statistically significant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.08, P = 0.09). There was one procedure-related death and seven tamponades with RFA, whereas symptomatic bradycardia was more frequent with AAD therapy.

Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation seems to be more effective than medical therapy as first-line treatment of paroxysmal AF in relatively young and otherwise healthy patients, but may also cause more severe adverse effects. These findings support the use of RFA as first-line therapy in selected patients, who understand the benefits and risks of the procedure.

Keywords: Antiarrhythmic drug; Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; First-line treatment; Meta-analysis; Outcome; Systematic review.