Ablation or Drugs First for Atrial Fibrillation?

Get Your Life Back in Rhythm

Ablation or Drugs First for Atrial Fibrillation? Should you do ablation or drugs first for atrial fibrillation? Technically, I would argue neither as studies show that with aggressive lifestyle changes, including weight loss, up to 50% of atrial fibrillation cases can be put into remission without drugs or procedures! Assuming you have already tried lifestyle changes, let's discuss next options--ablation or drugs first for atrial fibrillation based on three recently published meta-analysis studies. Background Information If you're not sure what an ablation is, or what drugs are used for atrial fibrillation, then this section is for you. For advanced readers, feel free to skip down to the next section. Catheter ablation is an outpatient procedure whereby a cardiologist specializing in arrhythmia treatment (cardiac electrophysiologist or "EP") inserts catheters into the heart through a vein in the leg. And then while the patient is asleep, the "EP" will cauterize or freeze those areas of the heart that are misfiring. And the goal of catheter ablation is no more AFib and no more anti-arrhythmic medications. Anti-arrhythmic drugs have traditionally been used first to keep hearts beating in rhythm. Under the old treatment paradigm, ablations were only recommended when drugs failed. Mechanistically, anti-arrhythmic medications change the electrical connections between cells in the heart. If everything goes as hoped then the drug keeps your heart in rhythm and you don't have any side effects. 1. JAMA Cardiology: Ablation or Drugs First In this recently published JAMA Cardiology meta-analysis study, researchers pooled the results from 6 randomized clinical trials (RCT's). I should point out here that RCT's are considered the most accurate clinical studies as by randomizing the patients to say treatment "A" vs "B" it minimizes the risk of selection bias. And selection bias can change the results of a study if researchers subconsciously recommend one treatment over another based on how "sick" the patient may be. With 1,212 patients from 6 RCT's available to study, these researchers came up with the following 3 conclusions: 1. Ablation is better at maintaining normal sinus rhythm. 2. Ablation results in less hospitalizations. 3. Ablation is every bit as safe as medications. When I've shared the results of studies like these with patients, many have been surprised to learn that the safety profile of an ablation is similar to that of medications. And probably the reason why ablations are just as safe as drugs probably stem from the fact that we really don't have any good medications available to keep hearts beating in rhythm. All of the anti-arrhythmic drugs can change the electrical connections within the heart thereby ever so slightly increasing the risk of a cardiac arrest. Indeed, based on my 26 years of clinical experience since medical school, I've personally seen far more serious complications from AFib medications than complications from catheter ablations. 2. British Medical Journal Heart: Ablation or Drugs First Interestingly, in this recently published meta-analysis researchers used the same 6 RCT's and the same 1,212 patients. Fortunately, when analyzing these same 6 studies, the researchers came to the same conclusion that ablations are best for keeping hearts in rhythm, keeping patients from being hospitalized, and from a safety standpoint there was no difference between the two therapies. In this world where everyone seems to interpret "the facts" differently, it is very reassuring that two different research groups came to the exact same conclusion. 3. Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology: Ablation or Drugs First And in the third meta-analysis study published this year, the researchers writing this report only included 5 studies of 997 patients. Now why they dropped one study isn't entirely clear. Regardless, even with only pooling the results of 5 RCT's,