Does catheter ablation improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation?
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is feasible, achieving a 66.1% success rate after multiple procedures, though repeat procedures and anti-arrhythmic drugs are often required.
AIMS: Over the past decade, catheter ablation (CA) has become an established therapy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Atrial fibrillation is common in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients, and restoring sinus rhythm is of great clinical benefit to them. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CA for AF in patients with HCM. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six databases were searched to identify studies describing outcomes of CA of AF in HCM patients with a mean follow-up of ≥12 months after the index procedure. The following data were extracted: (i) single-procedure success, (ii) multiple-procedure success, and (iii) drug-free success. Fifteen studies involving 531 patients were included. Single-procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmia at the latest follow-up was 45.5% 95% confidence interval (CI): 34.8-56.2%. With multiple procedures, the final success rate was 66.1% (95% CI: 55.3-76.9%) overall, 71.8% (95% CI: 61.6-82.0%) in paroxysmal AF, and 47.5% (95% CI: 36.0-59.0%) in non-paroxysmal AF. Without anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs), single-procedure success rate at latest follow-up was 32.9% (95% CI: 21.7-41.1%); after multiple procedures, this raised to 50.4% (95% CI: 39.2-61.6%). The incidence of serious periprocedural complications was acceptable 5.1% (95% CI: 2.8-9.6%). Substantial heterogeneity (I(2)> 50%) was noted in the above groups. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of AF in patients with HCM is feasible, although more repeat procedures and AAD are needed to prevent AF recurrence.
Zhao et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: