IMPORTANCE Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. RESULTS Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial.

No abstract

Dronedarone was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm and in reducing the ventricular rate during recurrence of arrhythmia.

A significant minority (almost 1 in 8) of U.S. patients in the community received NOAC doses inconsistent with labeling. NOAC over- and underdosing are associated with increased risk for adverse events. (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II [ORBIT-AF II]; NCT01701817).

BackgroundTherapeutic decisions in atrial fibrillation (AF) are often influenced by assessment of bleeding risk. However, existing bleeding risk scores have limitations.ObjectivesWe sought to develop and validate a novel bleeding risk score using routinely available clinical information to predict major bleeding in a large, community-based AF population.MethodsWe analysed data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF), a prospective registry that enrolled incident and prevalent AF patients at 176 US sites. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified factors independently associated with major bleeding among patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) over a median follow-up of 2 years (interquartile range = 1.6–2.5). We also created a numerical bedside risk score that included the five most predictive risk factors weighted according to their strength of association with major bleeding. The predictive performance of the full model, the simple five-item score, and two existing risk scores (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly, HAS-BLED, and anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation, ATRIA) were then assessed in both the ORBIT-AF cohort and a separate clinical trial population, Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation (ROCKET-AF).ResultsAmong 7411 ORBIT-AF patients taking OAC, the rate of major bleeding was 4.0/100 person-years. The full continuous model (12 variables) and five-factor ORBIT risk score (older age [75+ years], reduced haemoglobin/haematocrit/history of anaemia, bleeding history, insufficient kidney function, and treatment with antiplatelet) both had good ability to identify those who bled vs. not (C-index 0.69 and 0.67, respectively). These scores both had similar discrimination, but markedly better calibration when compared with the HAS-BLED and ATRIA scores in an external validation population from the ROCKET-AF trial.ConclusionsThe five-element ORBIT bleeding risk score had better ability to predict major bleeding in AF patients when compared with HAS-BLED and ATRIA risk scores. The ORBIT risk score can provide a simple, easily remembered tool to support clinical decision making.