Aims Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed by many techniques with varying success rates. This may be due to ablation techniques, patient demographics, comorbidities, and trial design. We conducted a meta-regression of studies of PsAF ablation to elucidate the factors affecting atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. Methods and results  Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. A meta-regression was performed. Fifty-eight studies (6767 patients) were included. Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation reduced freedom from AF by 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) −15 to −2.3, P = 0.009). Left atrial appendage [LAA isolation (three study arms)] increased freedom from AF by 39.5% (95% CI 9.1–78.4, P = 0.008). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) (eight study arms) increased freedom from AF by 19.4% (95% CI 3.3–38.1, P = 0.017). Linear ablation or ganglionated plexi ablation resulted in no significant effect on freedom from AF. More extensive ablation increased intraprocedural AF termination; however, intraprocedural AF termination was not associated with improved outcomes. Increased left atrial diameter was associated with a reduction in freedom from AF by 4% (95% CI −6.8% to −1.1%, P = 0.007) for every 1 mm increase in diameter. Conclusion  Linear ablation, PWI, and CFAE ablation improves intraprocedural AF termination, but such termination does not predict better long-term outcomes. Study arms including PWI or LAA isolation in the lesion set were associated with improved outcomes in terms of freedom from AF; however, further randomized trials are required before these can be routinely recommended. Left atrial size is the most important marker of AF chronicity influencing outcomes.

Objectives This meta-analysis examined the ability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to prevent atrial fibrillation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the patients not receiving PVI nevertheless underwent a procedure. Background PVI is a commonly used procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and its efficacy has usually been judged against therapy with anti-arrhythmic drugs in open-label trials. There have been several RCTs of AF ablation in which both arms received an ablation, but the difference between the treatment arms was inclusion or omission of PVI. These trials of an ablation strategy with PVI versus an ablation strategy without PVI may provide a more rigorous method for evaluating the efficacy of PVI. Methods Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing ablation including PVI with ablation excluding PVI. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia at 12 months. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator. Results Overall, 6 studies (n = 610) met inclusion criteria. AF recurrence was significantly lower with an ablation including PVI than an ablation without PVI (RR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.89; p = 0.0147; I 2 = 79.7%). Neither the type of AF (p = 0.48) nor the type of non-PVI ablation (p = 0.21) was a significant moderator of the effect size. In 3 trials the non-PVI ablation procedure was performed in both arms, whereas PVI was performed in only 1 arm. In these studies, AF recurrence was significantly lower when PVI was included (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.73; p = 0.007, I 2 78%). Conclusions In RCTs where both arms received an ablation, and therefore an expectation amongst patients and doctors of benefit, being randomized to PVI had a striking effect, reducing AF recurrence by a half.

No abstract

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a disease characterised by fibrofatty replacement of the ventricular myocardium due to specific mutations, leading to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Treating this condition can be challenging due to progressive fibrosis, phenotypic variations and small patient cohorts limiting the feasibility of conducting meaningful clinical trials. Although widely used, the evidence base for anti-arrhythmic drugs is limited. Beta-blockers are theoretically sound, yet their efficacy in reducing arrhythmic risk is not robust. Additionally, the impact of sotalol and amiodarone is inconsistent with studies reporting contradictory results. Emerging evidence suggests that combining flecainide and bisoprolol may be efficacious.Radiofrequency ablation has shown some potential in disrupting ventricular tachycardia circuits, with combined endo and epicardial ablation yielding better results which could be considered at the index procedure. In addition, stereotactic radiotherapy may be a future option that can decrease arrhythmias beyond simple scar formation by altering levels of Nav1.5 channels, Connexin 43 and Wnt signalling, potentially modifying myocardial fibrosis.Future therapies, such as adenoviruses and GSk3b modulation, are still in early-stage research. While implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is a key intervention for reducing arrhythmic death, the risks of inappropriate shocks and device complications must be carefully considered.