Background: We prospectively compared the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) impact of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) in elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods and results: Four hundred and twelve consecutive patients, aged ≥ 70 years, underwent ablation (Group A, 153 patients) or AAD (Group B, 259 patients). Study endpoints: treatment failure (any AF/AT lasting >30 seconds) and treatment-related adverse events (acute when ≤1 month of procedure and long term when >1 month). At a follow-up of 60 ± 17 months, 43% and 46% patients in Group B versus 58% and 76% in Group A were in sinus rhythm (SR), respectively, after one (P = 0.003) and 2 procedures (P < 0.001). Fifteen acute adverse events occurred (6.7% in Group A vs 1% in Group B, P < 0.001), mainly periprocedural cerebral thromboembolism (3.3% in Group A vs 0.7% in Group B, P = 0.058). Previous TIA/stroke resulted the only independent predictor of periprocedural cerebrovascular accidents (OR 1.2, 95%IC 1.1-1.3). At follow-up, 74 long-term adverse events occurred (7.7% in Group A vs 23.9% in Group B, P < 0.001) with Group B patients more often experiencing AAD-related adverse events (12.7% vs 2.6%, P < 0.001). Group A and absence of AF/AT recurrences significantly improved QoL scores (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: In elderly persistent AF patients, catheter ablation is more effective in maintaining SR and in improving QoL than AAD but is affected by a higher risk of embolic complications, particularly in patients with previous TIA/stroke. Over time, Group A patients more likely discontinued AAD with a reduction of long-term adverse events.
Keywords: antiarrhythmic drugs; catheter ablation; elderly patients; persistent atrial fibrillation; quality of life; stroke.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.