Feasibility of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

  • M. Meshkova Ukrainian Children’s Cardiac Center, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • A. Doronin Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kyiv, Ukraine
Keywords: atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, antiarrhythmic therapy, heart failure

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a worldwide epidemic that has hit about 33 million people. In clinical studies, the efficacy of antiarrhythmic therapy and catheter ablation in the treatment of AF was compared, and controversial results were obtained.

Objective. To analyze three advanced publications in recent years, which, according to the authors, are of fundamental importance for the choice of radiofrequency catheter ablation as a treatment option for AF.

Results and discussion. In the CABANA study catheter ablation was compared with antiarrhythmic therapy and showed significant improvement in the quality of life. Within 3 years, AF recurrence rate was 69% in the group of antiarrhythmic treatment and 50% in the catheter ablation group. The proportion of patients with non-paroxysmal AF decreased from 57% to 26% with antiarrhythmic treatment and up to 16% with catheter ablation. Among the serious complications in the catheter ablation group were tamponades (0.8%), minor hematomas (2.3%) and pseudoaneurysms (1.1%). Thyroid dysfunction (1.6%) and proarrhythmogenic effect (0.8%) were observed in the group of antiarrhythmic therapy.

In the CASTLE-AF (HF) study, 179 patients were randomly selected for catheter ablation, and 184 for antiarrhythmic therapy. All of them were in NYHA class II, III or IV, had left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, and used implantable defibrillator.

In the mean follow-up of 37.8 months, significantly less patients died after catheter ablation (24 [13.4%] versus 46 [25.0%]), and less were hospitalized due to worsening heart failure (37 [20.7%] versus 66 [35.9%]).

ATTEST is the first randomized controlled trial that has demonstrated slowing down of the progression of AF after catheter ablation. Radiofrequency ablation was performed in 128 patients, antiarrhythmic therapy was applied in 127 patients. Within 3 years, the incidence of persistent AF or atrial tachycardia was lower in patients treated with ablation compared with patients on antiarrhythmic therapy (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = 0.0009).

Conclusions. The expected benefit of catheter ablation of AF in comparison with drug therapy is as follows: increase in the probability of maintaining sinus rhythm, improvement of the quality of life, decrease in the number of hospitalizations and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure, decrease in fatigue.

References

  1. Dan GA. Rhythm Control in AF: Have We Reached the Last Frontier? Eur Cardiol. 2019 Jul 11;14(2):77–81. https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2019.8.1
  2. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014 Dec 2;130(23):e199–267. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000041
  3. Liu W, Wu Q, Yang XJ, Huang J. The trend of change in catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for the management of atrial fibrillation over time: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018 Jun;15(6):441–50. https://doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.06.011
  4. Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA, Monahan KH, Bahnson TD, Poole JE, et al. Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321(13):1261–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0693
  5. Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sheng S, Piccini JP, Baloch KN, Monahan KH, et al.; CABANA Investigators. Effect of catheter ablation vs medical therapy on quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321(13):1275–85. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0692
  6. Merino JL. The 2017 HRS/EHRA consensus statement on AF ablation in clinical practice in light of the Cabana trial. European Heart Rhythm Association. 2019.
  7. Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, Siebels J, Boersma L, Jordaens L, et al. Catheter Ablation for Atri- al Fibrillation with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378(5):417–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707855
  8. Arbelo E, Brugada J, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Laroche C, Kautzner J, Pokushalov E, et al. Contemporary management of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: in-hospital and 1-year follow-up findings from the ESC-EHRA atrial fibrillation ablation long-term registry. Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38(17):1303–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw564
  9. Cardiac Rhythm News [Internet]. London: BIBA Medical, Europe; c2019 [cited 2019 Dec 27]. ESC 2019: Catheter ablation may be up to 10 times more effective than drug therapy alone at delaying AF progression; [about 1 screen]. Available from: https://cardiacrhythmnews.com/catheter-ablation-may-be-up-to-10-times-more-effective-than-drug-therapy-alone-at-delaying-af-progression/
Published
2020-02-18
How to Cite
Meshkova, M., & Doronin, A. (2020). Feasibility of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Ukrainian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, (1 (38), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.30702/ujcvs/20.3803/015057-061