Key result
Rhythm control using predominantly amiodarone resulted in a 27% prevalence of atrial fibrillation at 4 years compared to 59-70% with standard rate control, with no significant difference in mortality.
Why the study?
Does early catheter ablation improve long-term sinus rhythm and outcomes compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or rate control in patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation?
Does early catheter ablation improve long-term sinus rhythm and outcomes compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or rate control in patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation?
This editorial discusses the significance of the AATAC trial results, suggesting that catheter ablation offers superior efficacy for maintaining sinus rhythm in heart failure patients compared to traditional antiarrhythmic therapy.
The current 2013 ACCF/ AHA Clinical Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure state that a rhythm-control strategy has not been shown to be superior to a rate-control strategy in patients with heart failure who develop AF (1). Further it states that the main goals of therapy should simply be the prevention of thromboembolism and symptom control (1). The recommendations are based on a randomized control trial which compared a rhythm strategy using predominantly Amiodarone and electrical cardioversion with standard rate control and showed no significant difference in mortality (2). The ‘prevalence’ of atrial fibrillation on 12 lead electrocardiography at 4 years follow-up was 27% in the rhythm control group and ranged between 59 and 70% over follow-up in the rate control arm (2). However catheter ablation has been shown to be remarkably more efficacious at achieving long term sinus rhythm and freedom from AF than antiarrhythmic drug therapy (3) and a randomized control trial to examine outcomes in a heart failure population had been anxiously awaited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K. Phillips (2016) conducted an editorial in Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. Catheter ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy / Rate control was evaluated. Rhythm control using predominantly amiodarone resulted in a 27% prevalence of atrial fibrillation at 4 years compared to 59-70% with standard rate control, with no significant difference in mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: