Study [reference] . | No. of patients . | Type of AF . | Previous use of AAD . | Ablation technique . | Patients without AF, %—Ablation vs. AAD or no AAD . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Krittayaphong et al. 2003 [483] | 30 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥1 AAD failured | PVI + LA lines + CTI ablation + RA lines | 79 vs. 40 |
Wazni et al. 2005 (RAAFT) [484] | 70 | Mainly paroxysmal | No | PVI | 87 vs. 37 |
Stabile et al. 2006 (CACAF) [485] | 137 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥2 AAD failure | PVI + LA lines ± CTI ablation | 56 vs. 9 |
Oral et al. 2006 [486] | 146 | Persistent | ≥1 AAD failure (mean 2.1 ± 1.2) | CPVA | 74 vs. 4 |
Pappone et al. 2006 (APAF) [487] | 198 | Paroxysmal | ≥2 AAD failure (mean 2 ± 1) | CPVA + CTI ablation | 86 vs. 22 |
Jais et al. 2008 (A4 study) [488] | 112 | Paroxysmal | ≥1 AAD failure | PVI ± LA lines ± CTI ablation | 89 vs. 23 |
Forleo et al. 2009 [489] | 70 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥1 AAD failure | PVI + CTI ablation ± LA lines | 80 vs. 43 |
Thermocool 2008f | 159 | Paroxysmal | ≥1 AAD failureg | PVI + CTI ablation ± LA lines ± RA focal ablation | 66 vs. 17 |
Study [reference] . | No. of patients . | Type of AF . | Previous use of AAD . | Ablation technique . | Patients without AF, %—Ablation vs. AAD or no AAD . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Krittayaphong et al. 2003 [483] | 30 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥1 AAD failured | PVI + LA lines + CTI ablation + RA lines | 79 vs. 40 |
Wazni et al. 2005 (RAAFT) [484] | 70 | Mainly paroxysmal | No | PVI | 87 vs. 37 |
Stabile et al. 2006 (CACAF) [485] | 137 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥2 AAD failure | PVI + LA lines ± CTI ablation | 56 vs. 9 |
Oral et al. 2006 [486] | 146 | Persistent | ≥1 AAD failure (mean 2.1 ± 1.2) | CPVA | 74 vs. 4 |
Pappone et al. 2006 (APAF) [487] | 198 | Paroxysmal | ≥2 AAD failure (mean 2 ± 1) | CPVA + CTI ablation | 86 vs. 22 |
Jais et al. 2008 (A4 study) [488] | 112 | Paroxysmal | ≥1 AAD failure | PVI ± LA lines ± CTI ablation | 89 vs. 23 |
Forleo et al. 2009 [489] | 70 | Paroxysmal or persistent | ≥1 AAD failure | PVI + CTI ablation ± LA lines | 80 vs. 43 |
Thermocool 2008f | 159 | Paroxysmal | ≥1 AAD failureg | PVI + CTI ablation ± LA lines ± RA focal ablation | 66 vs. 17 |
All patients in the ablation arm were treated with antiarrhythmic drugs; bpatients in the control group received amiodarone and had up to two electrical cardioversions if required during the first 3 months; amiodarone was discontinued if patients were in sinus rhythm after 3 months; cwith type 2 diabetes mellitus; dno previous use of amiodarone, but ‘failed’ drugs included beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and digitalis in addition to class IA and IC agents; eafter 1 year; not allowed during 1 year-follow-up; fpresented at the Heart Rhythm Society meeting in May 2009; gincluding beta-blockers and calcium antagonists. All studies had a follow-up period of 1 year.
AAD, antiarrhythmic drugs; AF, atrial fibrillation; APAF, Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation study; A4, Atrial fibrillation Ablation versus AntiArrhythmic drugs; CACAF, Catheter Ablation for the Cure of Atrial Fibrillation study; CPVA, circumferential pulmonary vein ablation; CTI, cavotricuspid isthmus; LA, left atrial; PVI, pulmonary vein isolation; RAAFT, Radiofrequency Ablation Atrial Fibrillation Trial; RA, right atrial.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.