Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drug TherapyClinical Perspective

Background— Information on comparative outcome between radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) >1 year after randomization is important for clinical decision-making. Methods and Results— A total of 198 patients (age, 56±10 years) with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to RFA (99 patients) or to AADs (99 patients). We evaluated efficacy of RFA or AADs in a comparable 48-month follow-up period according to intention-to-treat analysis. Cardiac rhythm was assessed with daily transtelephonic transmissions. Quality of life was also analyzed. At 4 years, among the 99 patients first assigned to RFA, the procedure was repeated because of recurrent atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia in 27 patients (27.3%). Among the 99 patients randomly assigned to AADs, 87 (87.9%) crossed over to undergo RFA and 4 years after random assignment only 12 (12.1%) were in sinus rhythm with AAD alone without ablation. Despite the high level of crossovers, at 4 years the intention-to-treat analysis showed that 72.7% of patients in the ablation arm and 56.5% of those initially randomly assigned to AADs were free of recurrent atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia ( P =0.017). During the follow-up, 19.2% of AAD patients progressed to persistent atrial fibrillation before switching to RFA. RFA significantly improved quality of life ( P <0.001), whereas before crossing over to RFA, patients receiving AADs showed poorer quality of life. Except for new left atrial tachycardia, there were no serious complications caused by RFA. Conclusions— With follow-up extended to 4 years after randomly assigned, ablation remains superior to antiarrhythmic drug in these patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT00340314][1]. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00340314&atom=%2Fcircae%2F4%2F6%2F808.atom