Terasawa Teruhiko, Balk Ethan M, Chung Mei, Garlitski Ann C, Alsheikh-Ali Alawi A, Lau Joseph, Ip Stanley
Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 4;151(3):191-202. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00131. Epub 2009 Jul 6.
Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Medical treatment often fails to control symptoms.
To compare the benefits and harms of radiofrequency catheter ablation and medical therapy in adults with atrial fibrillation.
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 to December 2008) were searched for English-language reports of studies in adults.
6 independent reviewers screened abstracts to identify longitudinal studies of adults with atrial fibrillation who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation. Studies reported arrhythmia or other cardiovascular outcomes at least 6 months after ablation or any adverse events.
Data were extracted by 1 of 4 reviewers and were verified by a cardiac electrophysiologist. Study quality and overall strength of evidence for each question were rated by 2 independent reviewers; disagreements were resolved by consensus.
108 studies met eligibility criteria. Moderate strength of evidence (3 trials; n = 30 to 198) showed that radiofrequency ablation after a failed drug course was more likely than continuation of drug therapy alone to lead to maintained sinus rhythm. Low strength of evidence (4 trials [n = 30 to 137] and 1 retrospective study [n = 1171]) suggested that radiofrequency ablation improved quality of life, promoted avoidance of anticoagulation, and decreased readmission rates compared with medical treatment. Major adverse events occurred in fewer than 5% of patients in most of 84 studies.
Study follow-up was generally 12 months or less. Large heterogeneity of applied techniques and reporting of outcomes precluded many definitive conclusions. Reporting of adverse events was poor. Publication and selective reporting biases could not be ruled out. Studies with small samples and studies reported in a language other than English were excluded.
Radiofrequency catheter ablation is effective for up to 12 months of rhythm control when used as a second-line therapy for atrial fibrillation in relatively young patients with near-intact cardiac function. Longer studies that use primary end points of stroke and mortality are needed.
心房颤动是最常见的持续性心律失常。药物治疗常常无法控制症状。
比较射频导管消融术与药物治疗对成年心房颤动患者的益处和危害。
检索MEDLINE和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(2000年至2008年12月),查找关于成年患者研究的英文报告。
6名独立评审员筛选摘要,以确定接受射频导管消融术的成年心房颤动患者的纵向研究。研究报告了消融术后至少6个月的心律失常或其他心血管结局或任何不良事件。
数据由4名评审员中的1名提取,并由一名心脏电生理学家进行核实。每个问题的研究质量和证据总体强度由2名独立评审员评定;分歧通过协商解决。
108项研究符合纳入标准。中等强度证据(3项试验;n = 30至198)表明,药物治疗失败后进行射频消融比单纯继续药物治疗更有可能维持窦性心律。低强度证据(4项试验[n = 30至137]和1项回顾性研究[n = 1171])表明,与药物治疗相比,射频消融改善了生活质量,促使避免抗凝,并降低了再入院率。在84项研究中的大多数研究中,主要不良事件发生在不到5%的患者中。
研究随访时间一般为12个月或更短。应用技术和结局报告的巨大异质性妨碍了许多明确结论得出。不良事件报告不佳。无法排除发表偏倚和选择性报告偏倚。排除了小样本研究以及非英文报告的研究。
对于心功能接近正常的相对年轻的心房颤动患者,射频导管消融术作为二线治疗用于节律控制时,长达12个月是有效的。需要开展以卒中和死亡率作为主要终点的更长时间研究。