Ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line therapy for treatment-naive atrial fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence on the relative safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as the first-line therapy for patients with treatment-naive atrial fibrillation (AF) remains disputed. Digital databases were queried to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The incidence of recurrent AF, major adverse cardiovascular events, and its components (all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding) were compared using the DerSimonian and Laird method under the random-effects model to calculate pooled unadjusted risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 6 randomized controlled trials consisting of 1,120 patients (574 ablation and 549 AADs) were included in the final analysis. Over a median follow-up of 1 year, the risk of any AF recurrence (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75) was significantly lower in patients receiving ablation than in patients receiving AADs. However, there was similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.46), trial-defined composite end point of adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.80), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 26.51), all-cause mortality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 13.90), and procedure/medication failure (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.46) with both therapies. In conclusion, in patients presenting with treatment-naive AF, ablation as a first-line therapy lowers the risk of AF recurrence with no associated increase in major adverse events, stroke, and mortality compared with AADs.