• Emmanouil Charitakis, Silvia Metelli, Lars O Karlsson, Antonios P Antoniadis, Konstantinos D Rizas, Ioan Liuba, Henrik Almroth, Anders Hassel Jönsson, Jonas Schwieler, Dimitrios Tsartsalis, Skevos Sideris, Elena Dragioti, Nikolaos Fragakis, and Anna Chaimani.
• Department of Cardiology and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Emmanouil.charitakis@liu.se.
• Bmc Med. 2022 May 31; 20 (1): 193.

BackgroundThere is no consensus on the most efficient catheter ablation (CA) strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies for AF ablation through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was performed up to October 5th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different CA approaches were included. Efficacy was defined as arrhythmia recurrence after CA and safety as any reported complication related to the procedure during a minimum follow-up time of 6 months.ResultsIn total, 67 RCTs (n = 9871) comparing 19 different CA strategies were included. The risk of recurrence was significantly decreased compared to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone for PVI with renal denervation (RR: 0.60, CI: 0.38-0.94), PVI with ganglia-plexi ablation (RR: 0.62, CI: 0.41-0.94), PVI with additional ablation lines (RR: 0.8, CI: 0.68-0.95) and PVI in combination with bi-atrial modification (RR: 0.32, CI: 0.11-0.88). Strategies including PVI appeared superior to non-PVI strategies such as electrogram-based approaches. No significant differences in safety were observed.ConclusionsThis NMA showed that PVI in combination with additional CA strategies, such as autonomic modulation and additional lines, seem to increase the efficacy of PVI alone. These strategies can be considered in treating patients with AF, since, additionally, no differences in safety were observed. This study provides decision-makers with comprehensive and comparative evidence about the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO registry number: CRD42020169494 .© 2022. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…