Key result
CRT shows no survival benefit over RVP after AV node ablation.
Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy versus right ventricular pacing improve all-cause mortality in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=430)
Yes
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy versus right ventricular pacing improve all-cause mortality in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.93 (95% CI 0.67–1.3)
p-value: p=0.683
In patients with refractory atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular node ablation combined with permanent pacing yields long-term survival comparable to population norms without significant survival differences between CRT and RV pacing, although early ablation improves outcomes in CRT recipients.
Background: Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is an effective rate-control strategy for patients with AF refractory to medical therapy. However, data on long-term survival outcomes and prognostic factors in this population remain limited. Thus, we aimed to evaluate long-term mortality in patients with refractory AF who underwent AVNA in a single country. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent AVNA followed by permanent pacing (n=435) in Estonia from 2012 to 2022. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Comparisons were made between CRT and right ventricular (RV) pacing, AVNA timing (≤6 months and later following device implantation) and by patient sex. Results: Acute success was achieved in 418 (96.1%); mean age was 73.2 ± 10.2 years and 56.5% were female. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (range 2 days to 12.9 years), with median survival of 7.8 years. No significant survival difference was observed between CRT and RV pacing overall nor in ad hoc AVNA and pacemaker implantation cases. Among CRT recipients, early AVNA (≤6 months post-implantation) significantly reduced mortality risk compared with later AVNA (HR 0.48; 95% CI [0.24-0.96]; p=0.038). In RV-paced patients, timing showed no survival impact, but renal function independently predicted mortality (p<0.001). Survival was similar between sexes. Conclusion: In this 10-year nationwide cohort, AVNA with permanent pacing resulted in survival comparable to local population norms. CRT provided no universal survival benefit over RV pacing, but early AVNA was associated with significantly improved outcomes in CRT recipients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kõre et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Refractory atrial fibrillation (n=430). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Right ventricular (RV) pacing was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.3, p=0.683). Cardiac resynchronization therapy showed no survival benefit over right ventricular pacing post-ablation (HR 0.93), though early ablation improved survival in CRT recipients (HR 0.48).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: