Cited by 37Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Optimal rhythm-control strategy for recurrent atrial tachycardia after catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial

Zhang, X.-D., Gu, J., Jiang, W.-F., Zhao, L., Zhou, L., Wang, Y.-L., Liu, Y.-G., Liu, X.·2014·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIM: Although catheter ablation (CA) has replaced antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) as first-line treatment in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), optimal treatment of recurrent atrial tachycardia (AT) after AF ablation remains unclear. This parallel randomized controlled study compared CA vs. AAD for recurrent AT after persistent AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-hundred and one patients (aged 59.1 ± 10.9 years, 68.7% male) with recurrent AT after persistent AF ablation were enrolled and randomized to either CA (n = 101) or AAD (n = 100) treatment. Primary endpoint was freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa, including AT and AF) at 24-month follow-up. Composite secondary endpoints comprised procedural complications, long-term morbidity and improvement in quality of life (QoL). On an intention-to-treat basis, the CA group had a higher rate of freedom from recurrent ATa (56.4 vs. 34.0%; P = 0.001). Adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a significant treatment effect with a hazard ratio of 0.538 (95% CI: 0.355-0.816) in favour of CA. There was a higher proportion of periprocedural complications in the CA group (7.9 vs. 0; P = 0.012), and of long-term adverse events in the AAD group (10.9 vs. 24.0%; P = 0.014). Quality of life was significantly higher for CA. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates superiority of CA over AAD for recurrent AT after persistent AF ablation with regard to SR maintenance, long-term safety and QoL improvement. However, CA use might be limited by a higher risk for periprocedural complications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu017

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Zhang, X.-D., Gu, J., Jiang, W.-F., Zhao, L., Zhou, L., Wang, Y.-L., Liu, Y.-G., & Liu, X.
Affiliations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, X.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
35
Issue
20
Pages
1327-1334
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2035357171
Cited by
37
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
persistent atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, antiarrhythmic drugs, rhythm control, atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, procedural complications, long-term safety, quality of life, sinus rhythm maintenance
MeSH terms
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents, Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Recurrence, Treatment Outcome, Catheter Ablation, Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review