A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing radiofrequency ablation versus pharmacological therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are both associated with worse prognosis and often coexist in the same patients. Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing major clinical endpoints in patients with AF and HF is still unsettled. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing CA with medical therapy (MT) in this population. METHODS:We systematically searched for randomized and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between patients with AF and HF treated with CA or MT. The studied outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and 6-min walking test (6MWT) improvement. RESULTS:A total of 12 studies counting 41,377 patients (3611 treated with CA and 37,766 with MT) were included in the analysis. The random-effect model revealed a clear trend in favor of CA in reducing unexpected HF hospitalization (RR 0.72; 95%CI 0.51-1.00; P = 0.05), all-cause death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.59-1.01; P = 0.06), all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.68-1.03; P = 0.09), and the composite of HF hospitalization and death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.58-1.02; P = 0.07), compared with MT. Patients treated with CA experienced a better improvement in LVEF (mean difference 6.17; 95%CI 2.98-9.37; P = 0.0002) and 6MWT (mean difference 13.70; 95%CI 3.95-23.45; P = 0.006). When the analysis was limited to randomized controlled trial, CA was found to significantly reduce all-cause death (RR 0.68; 95%CI 0.54-0.86; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION:As compared to MT, CA is associated with a better improvement in functional capacity and LVEF, and with a reduction in major clinical endpoints in patients with HF and AF.