Key result
Adenosine-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation does not significantly improve freedom from arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional ablation (RR 1.03).
Why the study?
Does adenosine-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation reduce arrhythmia recurrence in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,785)
Does adenosine-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation reduce arrhythmia recurrence in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Routine adenosine testing to guide additional ablation after pulmonary vein isolation does not significantly reduce atrial fibrillation recurrence based on pooled RCT data.
Discourages routine adenosine testing for dormant conduction after pulmonary vein isolation; confirms conventional ablation remains.
Background The prognostic significance of adenosine‐mediated dormant pulmonary vein conduction, and whether such dormant conduction should be eliminated, remains controversial. We sought to perform a meta‐analysis of data from eligible studies to delineate the prognostic impact of adenosine‐guided radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using online databases in order to identify relevant studies from January 2004 to September 2016. Ten studies [six observational and four randomized control trials (RCTs)] were included in the analysis. Results Five studies (two observational and three RCTs) compared the efficacy of adenosine‐mediated elimination of dormant conduction versus no adenosine test. Overall, the adenosine‐guided ablation strategy displayed better long‐term outcomes as compared with no adenosine testing (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.14, p =0.02; Heterogeneity: I 2 =42%, p : 0.14). The meta‐analysis of only RCTs failed to show any differences between the two strategies (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96–1.11, p =0.37; Heterogeneity: I 2 0%, p : 0.41). Eight studies (five observational and three RCTs) addressed the efficacy of adenosine‐induced dormant conduction and additional ablation versus no dormant conduction during adenosine challenge. Overall, a trend towards a better outcome in those without dormant conduction during drug challenge was noted (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77–1.03, p =0.11; Heterogeneity: I 2 65% p : 0.006). The pooled analysis of RCTs failed to show any differences between the two arms (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62–1.30, p = 0.57; Heterogeneity: I 2 88%, p : 0.0002). Conclusions Adenosine‐guided radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation does not provide additional benefit in terms of freedom of arrhythmia recurrence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Letsas et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=3,785). Adenosine-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation vs. No adenosine testing (conventional pulmonary vein isolation) was evaluated on Freedom from arrhythmia recurrence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.11, p=0.37). Adenosine-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation does not significantly improve freedom from arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional ablation (RR 1.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: