Cited by 847Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation With Antiarrhythmic Drugs or Radiofrequency Ablation: Two Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Calkins, Hugh, Reynolds, Matthew R., Spector, Peter, Sondhi, Manu, Xu, Yingxin, Martin, Amber, Williams, Catherine J., Sledge, Isabella·2009·Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has evolved from an experimental procedure to an important treatment option for atrial fibrillation, the relative safety and efficacy of catheter ablation relative to that of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two separate systematic reviews were conducted: one on RFA and the other on AAD to provide accurate and broadly representative estimates of the clinical efficacy and safety of both therapies in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Electronic searches were conducted in EMBASE and MEDLINE from 1990 to 2007. For the RFA review, all study designs were accepted. For the AAD review, articles were limited to prospective studies on the following drugs of interest: amiodarone, dofetilide, sotalol, flecainide, and propafenone. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer, with a second reviewer performing independent confirmation of extracted data. Sixty-three RFA and 34 AAD studies were included in the reviews. Patients enrolled in RFA studies tended to be younger (mean age, 55 versus 62 years), had longer duration of atrial fibrillation (6.0 versus 3.1 years), and had failed a greater number of prior drug trials (2.6 versus 1.7). The single-procedure success rate of ablation off AAD therapy was 57% (95% CI, 50% to 64%), the multiple procedure success rate off AAD was 71% (95% CI, 65% to 77%), and the multiple procedure success rate on AAD or with unknown AAD usage was 77% (95% CI, 73% to 81%). In comparison, the success rate for AAD therapy was 52% (95% CI, 47% to 57%). A major complication of catheter ablation occurred in 4.9% of patients. Adverse events for AAD studies, although more common (30% versus 5%), were less severe. CONCLUSIONS: Studies of RFA for treatment of atrial fibrillation report higher efficacy rates than do studies of AAD therapy and a lower rate of complications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circep.108.824789

Cites

128 of 128 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?

  • Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is effective in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal, persistent, and probably long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, generally as second-line treatment after failure of or intolerance to antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

    “Catheter ablation of AF is effective in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal, persistent, and probably long-standing persistent AF -in general as second-line treatment after failure of or intolerance to antiarrhythmic drug therapy.”
  • In patients with symptomatic paroxysmal, persistent, and probably long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

    “In such patients, catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drug therapy.185,586,713,[717][718][719][720]”
  • In patients who experience symptomatic recurrences of atrial fibrillation despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, all randomized controlled trials showed better sinus rhythm maintenance with catheter ablation than on antiarrhythmic drugs.

    “In patients who experience symptomatic recurrences of AF despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, all RCTs showed better sinus rhythm maintenance with catheter ablation than on antiarrhythmic drugs.586,713,727,728”
  • Most patients require more than one procedure to achieve symptom control after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

    “Most patients require more than one procedure to achieve symptom control.713,726,728”
  • The rhythm outcome after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is difficult to predict in individual patients.

    “The rhythm outcome after catheter ablation of AF is difficult to predict in individual patients.173,227,713,728”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calkins, H., Reynolds, M. R., Spector, P., Sondhi, M., Xu, Y., Martin, A., Williams, C. J., & Sledge, I.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Venue
Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
Published
2009-08
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
349-361
ISSN
  • 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-3149
OpenAlex
W2020741490
Cited by
847
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 74
FWCI
43.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology (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 pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
atrial fibrillation, radiofrequency catheter ablation, antiarrhythmic drugs, amiodarone, dofetilide, sotalol, flecainide, propafenone, treatment efficacy, procedural complications, ablation success rate
MeSH terms
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents, Atrial Fibrillation, Humans, Catheter Ablation

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