John Dimarco

BACKGROUND: There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.

During the past decade, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved rapidly from an investigational procedure to its current status as a commonly performed ablation procedure in many major hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard or minimally invasive techniques, is also performed in many major hospitals throughout the world. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society.1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology. Since the publication of the 2007 document, there has been much learned about AF ablation, and the indications for these procedures have changed. Therefore the purpose of this 2012 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a Task Force, convened by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society and charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of this procedure. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation, including definitions relevant to this topic. This statement summarizes the opinion of the Task Force members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter ablation of AF. Rather the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient …

37.6% VVI(R) to DDD(R): 3.1% DDD(R) dropout: 8.3% R*added to pacing mode designation indicates rate-responsive pacemakers implanted in all patients. (R)