Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Endpoints of Five Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis

Abstract

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent arrhythmia that occurs in 2–4% of adults and poses a threat to human health. Thus, comparison of the efficacy and safety of therapies for AF is warranted. Here, we used network analysis to compare efficacy (arrhythmia recurrence and re-hospitalization) and safety (ischemic cerebral vascular events, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality) endpoints among five major therapies for AF.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched, and relevant literature was retrieved. Only studies that made comparisons among the therapies of interest and involved patients with AF were included. Pairwise comparisons and frequentist method (SUCRA plot) analyses were conducted.ResultsIn total, 62 studies were included in the pooled analysis. In pairwise comparisons, atrioventricular nodal ablation plus permanent pacemaker (AVN + PPM) was associated with a significantly higher risk of atrial arrhythmia recurrence than surgical ablation [odds ratio (OR): 23.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97–287.59, fixed-effect model; 3.82, 95% CI: 1.01–559.74, random-effects model]. Furthermore, radiofrequency ablation was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality than medication in pairwise comparison (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29–0.83, fixed-effect model; OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27–0.9, random-effects model). Frequentist analysis indicated that AVN + PPM had the best performance in reducing the risk of safety and efficacy endpoints.ConclusionNon-pharmaceutical therapies showed superior performance to traditional drug therapy in lowering the risk of safety and efficiency endpoint events. AVN + PPM performed best in reducing the risk of safety and efficacy endpoints.