Comparison between catheter ablation versus permanent pacemaker implantation as an initial treatment for tachycardia–bradycardia syndrome patients: a prospective, randomized trial

Abstract

Abstract Background Clinical outcomes after catheter ablation (CA) or pacemaker (PM) implantation for the tachycardia–bradycardia syndrome (TBS) has not been evaluated adequately. We tried to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of CA and PM implantation as an initial treatment option for TBS in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods Sixty-eight patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS (mean 63.7 years, 63.2% male) were randomized, and received CA (n = 35) or PM (n = 33) as initial treatments. The primary outcomes were unexpected emergency room visits or hospitalizations attributed to cardiovascular causes. Results In the intention-to-treatment analysis, the rates of primary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at the 2-year follow-up (19.8% vs. 25.9%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25–2.20, P = 0.584), irrespective of whether the results were adjusted for age (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.34–3.64, P = 0.852). The 2-year rate of recurrent AF was significantly lower in the CA group compared to the PM group (33.9% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.038). Four patients (11.4%) in the CA group finally received PMs after CA owing to recurrent syncope episodes. The rate of major or minor procedure related complications was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion CA had a similar efficacy and safety profile with that of PM and a higher sinus rhythm maintenance rate. CA could be considered as a preferable initial treatment option over PM implantation in patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS. Trial registration KCT0000155.

Keywords

• Atrial fibrillation
• Catheter ablation
• Artificial pacemaker
• Sick sinus syndrome