Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyMeta-analysis

Antiarrhythmic drugs vs catheter ablation as rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Heart RhythmPublished

  • systematic review
  • update of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2021) systematic review
  • Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool
  • GRADE approach

Authors' conclusion

This review found that, in some subgroups of patients, catheter ablation was better than AAD treatment when considering AF recurrence and mortality. However, catheter ablation has rare but serious complications that should be considered when making informed treatment decisions.

Study context

Population
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated for rhythm control22 studies (31 references) included in the review
Comparison
treated with anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) compared with catheter ablation

Pooled result

As reported in the abstract

Recurrence of AF
AAD vs catheter ablationRelative risk (95% CI)
treatment-naïve paroxysmal AF
1.76(1.34–2.32)
AAD-exposed persistent AF
1.62(1.40–1.87)
paroxysmal AF previously exposed to catheter ablation
2.12(1.61–2.80)

Further pooled results

OutcomeRR (95% CI)
All-cause mortality — AAD vs catheter ablation · paroxysmal AF1.79 (0.80–4.02)
All-cause mortality — AAD vs catheter ablation · persistent AF1.45 (0.56–3.75)

Safety

OutcomeAADcatheter ablation
Medication side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms and syncopeincidence between 0.8 and 3%Not reported in the abstract
Catheter ablation complications, such as pericardial tamponade and phrenic nerve paralysis
between 0.3 and 2.5% · incidence

Original publication

Antiarrhythmic drugs vs catheter ablation as rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Heart Rhythm. Published 23 March 2026. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2026.03.1886

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it