There is variability in treatment modalities for premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), including use of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy or catheter ablation (CA). This study reviewed evidence comparing CA vs AADs for the treatment of PVCs. A systematic review was performed from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials database, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register. Five studies (1 randomized controlled trial) enrolling 1,113 patients (57.9% female) were analyzed. Four of five studies recruited mainly patients with outflow tract PVCs. There was significant heterogeneity in AAD choice. Electroanatomic mapping was used in 3 of 5 studies. No studies documented intracardiac echocardiography or contact force-sensing catheter use. Acute procedural endpoints varied (2 of 5 targeted elimination of all PVCs). All studies had significant potential for bias. CA seemed superior to AADs for PVC recurrence, frequency, and burden. One study reported long-term symptoms (CA superior). Quality of life or cost-effectiveness was not reported. Complication and adverse event rates were 0% to 5.6% for CA and 9.5% to 21% for AADs. Future randomized controlled trials will assess CA vs AADs for patients with PVCs without structural heart disease (ECTOPIA [Elimination of Ventricular Premature Beats with Catheter Ablation versus Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment]), with impaired LVEF (PAPS [Prospective Assessment of Premature Ventricular Contractions Suppression in Cardiomyopathy] Pilot), and with structural heart disease (CAT-PVC [Catheter Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Therapy of Premature Ventricular Contractions in Patients With Structural Heart Disease]). In conclusion, CA seems to reduce recurrence, burden, and frequency of PVCs compared with AADs. There is a lack of data on patient- and health care-specific outcomes such as symptoms, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Several upcoming trials will offer important insights for management of PVCs.

In practice, atrial fibrillation (AF) is typically managed by controlling ventricular rate given similar long-term outcomes and a more tolerable drug profile when compared to rhythm control. However, despite treatment via rate control, patients remain at increased risk for cardiovascular complications. This systematic review provides a summary of literature evaluating the effectiveness of early rhythm control (ERC, initiated within 2 years of diagnosis) in AF in reducing cardiovascular complications. A systematic review utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed to identify literature evaluating effectiveness of rhythm control strategies and cardiovascular complication reduction rates in ERC. A total of three literature articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included for evaluating the benefit of ERC. One of these examined was a trial that directly compared antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) versus catheter ablation (CA) therapy in maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR). This systematic review shows that ERC is associated with a reduction of cardiovascular events in AF patients compared to other treatment strategies.

Limited medical options are available for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). There are no published reports of dofetilide use in this population.
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 1,404 patients loaded on dofetilide for AF suppression at the Cleveland Clinic from 2008 to 2012, 25 of whom were found to have HCM.
The HCM cohort was 32% female, 76% with persistent AF, mean age of 59 ± 10 years, and mean ejection fraction of 54 ± 9 %. Of the 25 patients, 21 were discharged on dofetilide, three discontinued during loading due to QTc prolongation, and one due to inefficacy. There were no adverse events during loading. Of those discharged on dofetilide, 11/21 (52%) were still on it at a median follow-up of 396 (198, 699) days at the time of the chart review. For those in whom it was discontinued, the median time on the drug was 301 (111, 738) days. Of the 10 patients who discontinued dofetilide during follow-up, six were due to inefficacy, one postablation, one postheart transplant, one due to death secondary to lung cancer, and one due to worsening edema.
Dofetilide was well tolerated in this group of patients with AF and HCM and it facilitated management of AF in 21/25 (84%) patients. Further research is needed to assess the safety and efficacy of dofetilide in order to develop evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of AF in this population.

Introduction and Objectives: This study was designed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for arrhythmia compared to existing drug therapy. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through searches of the MEDLINE, CNKI, Embase, and Cochrane databases (1970 through 2016) and hand searches of cross-references from original articles and reviews. Clinical trials that randomized arrhythmia patients to acupuncture therapy vs. conventional drugs, sham acupuncture, or bed rest were included for analysis. Results: A total of 13 trials with 797 patients met the criteria for analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and conventional treatment for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) (n = 203; RR, 1.18; 95% CI 0.78-1.79; I2 = 80%; P = 0.44). However, in the ventricular premature beat (VPB) group, it showed a significant benefit of acupuncture plus oral administration of anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) on response rates compared with the oral administration of AAD (n = 286; RR, 1.15; 95% CI 1.05-1.27; I2 = 0%; P = 0.002). Finally, when compared with the sinus tachycardia (ST) cases without any treatment, acupuncture has benefited these patients (n = 120; MD, 18.80, 95% CI 12.68-24.92; I2 = 81%; P < 0.00001). Conclusions: In summary, our meta-analysis demonstrates that clinical efficacy of acupuncture is not less than AAD for PSVT. Furthermore, in sub-group analysis, acupuncture with or without AAD, shows a clear benefit in treating VPB and ST. However, more definitive RCTs are warranted to guide clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: New evidence about first-line radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) has emerged. In a single study the comparative treatment effect is potentially diminished by the high rate of cross-over to the alternative therapy. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA vs. antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs).
RESULTS: Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing RFA and AAD therapy as first-line treatment of AF in August 2014. Three studies with 491 patients with recurrent symptomatic AF were included. The patients were relatively young and the majority of them had paroxysmal AF (98.7%) and no major comorbidity. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was associated with significantly higher freedom from AF recurrence compared with AAD therapy [risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.92, P = 0.02]. The difference in the rate of symptomatic AF recurrences was not statistically significant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.08, P = 0.09). There was one procedure-related death and seven tamponades with RFA, whereas symptomatic bradycardia was more frequent with AAD therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency catheter ablation seems to be more effective than medical therapy as first-line treatment of paroxysmal AF in relatively young and otherwise healthy patients, but may also cause more severe adverse effects. These findings support the use of RFA as first-line therapy in selected patients, who understand the benefits and risks of the procedure.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of atrial fibrillation remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the safety and the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy both as first- and second-line therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation.
RESULTS: Several databases were searched from inception to March 2014, which yielded 11 studies with 1481 patients with atrial fibrillation. The outcomes measured were recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia and the incidence of adverse events. A subgroup analysis was done to evaluate the efficacy of CA as first- or second-line therapy. There was recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia in 222 of 785 (28%) patients who underwent CA and in 451 of 696 (65%) patients who were on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.52; P=0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed a beneficial effect of CA both as a first-line (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.91; P=0.02) and as a second-line (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.48; P<0.00001) therapeutic modality. There was a significantly higher incidence of major adverse events in the CA group when compared with those in the antiarrhythmic drug therapy group (relative risk, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.77; P=0.02, I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSIONS: CA seems to be superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in drug naïve, resistant, and intolerant patients with atrial fibrillation. However, it should be performed in carefully selected patients after weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure.