Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study

By P. Jaïs, B. Cauchemez, L. Macle, E. Daoud, P. Khairy, R. Subbiah, M. Hocini, F. Extramiana, F. Sacher, P. Bordachar and 4 more. Circulation, 2008

880 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design (2012, background): “Of much greater importance, however, are the results of three randomized clinical trials that compared catheter ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with paroxysmal AF and also evaluated QOL as an outcome measure [112, 113, 505].”
2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (2017, background): “Investigating catheter ablation as second-line therapy after failed AAD treatment, catheter ablation was associated with significant improvements in SF-36 scores relative to baseline, with restoration to levels at or above population norms.(261,684) QOL scores were significantly higher for patients ”
Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. (2010, methodology): “In prior randomized trials of catheter ablation vs ADT for paroxysmal AF, 1 year freedomfromrecurrentAFwasreported in56%to89%ofpatients treatedbycatheterablation.(14-16) This rangeofoutcomes may reflect differences in patient selection, intensityof rhythmmonitoringand auditingduringfollow-up,endpoin”