Ablation Compared to Pharmacological Treatment for the Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: A Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

A meta-analysis found that ablation is more effective than drugs in reducing atrial fibrillation recurrence.

Contribution

This study provides a meta-analysis comparing ablation and pharmacological treatments for AF recurrence.

Findings

Ablation significantly reduced AF recurrence compared to pharmacological treatment.

The pooled odds ratio for AF recurrence was 0.24 (95% CI 0.14-0.39) in favor of ablation.

Seven studies with 2324 patients were analyzed to reach these conclusions.

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common heart arrhythmias, and due to its variable presentation, detecting and treating AF appropriately can reduce some of its serious complications. Among treatment options, surgical ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy are two of the most widely used choices. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the rates of AF recurrence in those treated with ablation compared to pharmacological treatment. Google Scholar and PubMed were searched for study trials published within the last decade that calculated the recurrence of AF symptoms in patient groups that received ablation or pharmacological treatment. Selected studies were analyzed in RevMan 5.4 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, England, UK), and each study's odds ratio and overall odds ratio were calculated using a 95% confidence interval. A total of seven studies with 2324 patients were analyzed for the meta-analysis, with 1162 patients receiving ablation and 1162 patients receiving pharmacological treatment. There was a statistically significant decrease in the recurrence of AF in the ablation group compared to the pharmacological treatment group, with a pooled odds ratio of 0.24 (CI 95% 0.14-0.39). AF treated with ablation was more effective in reducing AF recurrence than general pharmacological treatment.

Figures