Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device

Luigi Di Biase(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Prasant Mohanty(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Sanghamitra Mohanty(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Pasquale Santangeli(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Chintan Trivedi(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Madhu Reddy(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Pierre Jaı̈s(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Sakis Themistoclakis(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Antonio Dello Russo(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Michela Casella(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Gemma Pelargonio(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Maria Lucia Narducci(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Robert A. Schweikert(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Petr Neužil(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Javier Sánchez(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Rodney Horton(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Salwa Beheiry(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Richard Hongo(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Steven Hao(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Antonio Rossillo(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Giovanni B. Forleo(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Claudio Tondo(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), J. David Burkhardt(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Michel Haı̈ssaguerre(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia), Andrea Natale(Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia)
Circulation
April 25, 2016
Cited by 853Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to amiodarone (AMIO) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with persistent AF, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 months were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo CA for AF (group 1, n=102) or receive AMIO (group 2, n=101). Recurrence of AF was the primary end point. All-cause mortality and unplanned hospitalization were the secondary end points. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 24 months. At the end of follow-up, 71 (70%; 95% confidence interval, 60%-78%) patients in group 1 were recurrence free after an average of 1.4±0.6 procedures in comparison with 34 (34%; 95% confidence interval, 25%-44%) in group 2 (log-rank P<0.001). The success rate of CA in the different centers after a single procedure ranged from 29% to 61%. After adjusting for covariates in the multivariable model, AMIO therapy was found to be significantly more likely to fail (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.3; P<0.001) than CA. Over the 2-year follow-up, the unplanned hospitalization rate was (32 [31%] in group 1 and 58 [57%] in group 2; P<0.001), showing 45% relative risk reduction (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.76). A significantly lower mortality was observed in CA (8 [8%] versus AMIO (18 [18%]; P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter randomized study shows that CA of AF is superior to AMIO in achieving freedom from AF at long-term follow-up and reducing unplanned hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure and persistent AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00729911.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis