Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Purpose: The superiority of catheter ablation (CA) for persistent (and long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently not well defined. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical outcomes of CA compared with medical therapy in persistent AF patients.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for RCTs comparing CA with medical therapy in patients with persistent AF. For CA vs medical rhythm control, the primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia. For CA vs medical rate control, the primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Results: Eight studies with a total of 809 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with medical rhythm control, CA was superior in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia (RR 2.08, 95% CI [1.67, 2.58]; P < 0.00001). Similar result was found in CA arm without antiarrhythmic drug use after operation (RR 1.82, 95%CI [1.33, 2.49]; P = 0.0002). CA was also superior in reducing the probability of cardioversion (RR 0.59, 95%CI [0.46, 0.76]; P < 0.0001) and hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95%CI [0.39, 0.74]; P = 0.0002). Compared with the medical rate control in persistent AF patients with heart failure (HF), CA significantly improved the LVEF (MD 7.72, 95%CI [4.78, 10.67]; P < 0.00001) and reduced Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (MD 11.1395% CI [2.52-19.75]; P = 0.01).

Conclusions: CA appeared to be superior to medical therapy in persistent AF patients and might be considered as a first-line therapy for some persistent AF patients especially for those with HF.

Keywords: Catheter ablation; Medical therapy; Meta-analysis; Persistent atrial fibrillation.