ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation versus amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, so as to provide reference for the chosen of clinical treatment options. MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2014), CNKI, VIP and WanFang data from inception to October 2014 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radiofrequency ablation versus amiodarone for atrial fibrillation. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 4 RCTs involving 511 atrial fibrillation patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with amiodarone, radiofrequency ablation could reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation recurrence (RR=0.35, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.55, P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR=0.97, 95%CI 0.17 to 5.61, P=0.97) between both groups. The incidence of adverse events in the radiofrequency ablation group was 7.7%, and was lower than 12.7% of the amiodarone group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that, compared with amiodarona, radiofrequency ablation is related to lower recurrence rate and higher efficacy, but there is no difference in the safety between the two interventions. However, due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, higher quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide reference for treatment scheme selection, drug selection and the formulation of drug policy. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM from 2000 to 2014 to collect pharmacoeconomic studies on RFA versus Amiodarone for treating AF. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The cost-effectiveness of RFA and Amiodarone for AF was compared according to the cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ResultsA total of three studies were included. The results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation showed that the ICERs for each study were $7 976 to $29 068, ￡7 763 to ￡27 745, and $59 194, respectively. According to country-specific willingness to pay thresholds, the ICER of each included study was acceptable. ConclusionCompared to Amiodarone, RFA is a cost-effective therapy for AF.