Why the study?
Prevalence of AF in patients with CHD is rising, but anti-arrhythmic drugs are often ineffective and poorly tolerated.
Does catheter ablation improve AF freedom and safety in patients with congenital heart disease and atrial fibrillation?
Does catheter ablation improve AF freedom and safety in patients with congenital heart disease and atrial fibrillation?
Catheter ablation for AF in patients with congenital heart disease offers modest 12-month efficacy (32.8% to 63% AF freedom) that improves with repeat procedures, alongside an excellent safety profile.
Supports ablation as safe alternative after failed drugs in CHD; extends sparse evidence on modest single-procedure success.
BACKGROUND: Prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) is on the rise. Anti-arrhythmic drugs are usually the first line of treatment in CHD, however, it is often ineffective and poorly tolerated. We aimed to perform a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for AF in CHD. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search on catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in congenital heart disease up until July 2019 through several electronic databases. RESULTS: Ablation of AF in patients with CHD had a modest 12 months AF freedom ranging from 32.8% to 63%, which can be increased by subsequent/repeat ablation. The complexity of CHD appears to have a significant effect on a study but not in others. Catheter ablation in ASD and persistent left superior vena cava had a high success rate. Overall, catheter ablation is safe whichever the type of CHD is. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation for AF in CHD had modest efficacy that can be increased by subsequent/repeat ablation and it also has an excellent safety profile. Ablation in complex CHD could also have similar efficacy, however, it is preferably done by experts in a high volume tertiary center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pranata et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: