Impact of early vs. delayed atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on atrial arrhythmia recurrences.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is an effective strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its timing in the course of management remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine if an early vs. delayed AF ablation strategy is associated with differences in arrhythmia outcomes during 12-month follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients with symptomatic AF referred to a tertiary centre for management were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either an early ablation strategy (within 1 month of recruitment) or a delayed ablation strategy (optimized medical therapy followed by catheter ablation at 12 months post recruitment). The primary endpoint was atrial arrhythmia free survival at 12 months post-ablation. Secondary outcomes included: (i) AF burden, (ii) AF burden by AF phenotype, and (iii) antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use at 12 months. Overall, 89 patients completed the study protocol (Early vs. Delayed: 48 vs. 41). Mean age was 59 ± 12.9 years (29% women). Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of patients. At 12 months, 56.3% of patients in the early ablation group were free from recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 58.6% in the delayed ablation group (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.59-2.13, P = 0.7). All secondary outcomes showed no significant difference including median AF burden (Early vs. Delayed: 0% [IQR 3.2] vs. 0% [5], P = 0.66), median AF burden amongst paroxysmal AF patients (0% [IQR 1.1] vs. 0% [4.5], P = 0.78), or persistent AF patients (0% [IQR 22.8] vs. 0% [5.6], P = 0.45) or AAD use (33% vs. 37%, P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Compared with an early ablation strategy, delaying AF ablation by 12 months for AAD management did not result in reduced ablation efficacy.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

Cryoablation or Drug Therapy for Initial Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

AF is a common chronic and progressive disorder. Without treatment, AF will recur in up to 75% of patients within a year of their index diagnosis. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) have been proven to be more effective than placebo at maintaining sinus rhythm and remain the recommended initial therapeutic option for AF. However, the emergence of 'single-shot' AF ablation toolsets, which have enabled enhanced procedural standardisation and consistent outcomes with low rates of complications, has led to renewed interest in determining whether first-line catheter ablation may improve outcomes. The recently published EARLY-AF trial evaluated the role of initial cryoballoon ablation versus guideline-directed AAD therapy. Compared to AADs, an initial treatment cryoballoon ablation strategy resulted in greater freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, superior reduction in AF burden, greater improvement in quality of life and lower healthcare resource utilisation. These findings are relevant to patients, providers and healthcare systems when considering the initial treatment choice for rhythm-control therapy.

Quality of life after the initial treatment of atrial fibrillation with cryoablation versus drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: The STOP AF First trial recently demonstrated that initial treatment with cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is safe and superior to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy for preventing atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the change in quality of life (QoL) and symptoms after first-line CBA vs AAD therapy. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic AF not previously receiving rhythm control therapy were randomized to AAD (class I or III) or CBA (Arctic Front Advance, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN). QoL was evaluated at baseline and at 6 and 12 months by using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaires. A review of AF-associated symptoms was conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 203 subjects received either CBA (n = 104 [51.2%]) or AAD therapy (n = 99 [48.8%]). Improvements in the AFEQT summary and subscale scores were significantly larger with CBA than with AAD therapy at 6 and 12 months (P < .02 for all). Clinically meaningful improvement (>5 points) in the AFEQT summary score from baseline to 12 months was observed in 96.0% (100) of patients in the CBA arm vs 72.2% (71) of patients in the AAD arm (P < .001). No significant between-group differences were observed in the change in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions index or visual analog scale scores. Overall, 54.4% (57) of the CBA group vs 29.7% (29) of the AAD group reported no AF-specific symptom recurrence after a 90-day blanking period (P = .0005). CONCLUSION: First-line CBA vs AAD therapy is associated with larger improvements in AF-specific QoL and a higher rate of symptom resolution.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation-Insights from the German Ablation Registry.

Data on the optimal treatment strategy for antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD) after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) are inconsistent. The present study investigates whether postinterventional AAD leads to an improved long-term outcome. Patients from the prospective German Ablation Registry (n = 3275) discharged with or without AAD after catheter ablation for AF were compared regarding the rates of recurrences, reablations and cardiovascular events as well as patient reported outcomes during 12 months follow-up. In patients with paroxysmal AF (n = 2138) the recurrence rate did not differ when discharged with (n = 1051) or without (n = 1087) AAD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.95-1.35]). The reablation rate was higher and reduced treatment satisfaction was reported more often in those discharged with AAD (reablation: OR 1.30, 95% CI [1.05-1.61]; reduced treatment satisfaction: OR 1.76, 95% CI [1.20-2.58]). Similar rates of recurrences, reablations and treatment satisfaction were found in patients with persistent AF (n = 1137) discharged with (n = 641) or without (n = 496) AAD (recurrence: OR 1.22, 95% CI [0.95-1.56]; reablation: OR 1.21, 95% CI [0.91-1.61]; treatment satisfaction: OR 1.24, 95% CI [0.74-2.08]). The incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality did not differ at follow-up in patients discharged with or without AAD. In conclusion, the rates of recurrences, cardiovascular events and mortality did not differ between patients discharged with or without AAD after AF catheter ablation. However, AAD should be considered carefully in patients with paroxysmal AF, in whom it was associated with a higher reablation rate and reduced treatment satisfaction. Clinical trial registration: The trial has been registered under the number NCT01197638.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary.

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age. This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Therapy of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in adults with congenital heart disease-narrative review.

Arrhythmias are among the most common late complications in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) and a frequent reason for hospital admission. Both, supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias, not only cause debilitating symptoms, but may be life-threatening by increasing risk of stroke, causing or worsening heart failure and being associated with sudden death. Substrate and risk for arrhythmia differs widely between congenital defects with specific arrhythmias being much more common in some patients than others. Atrial macroreentrant arrhythmias are particularly frequent in patients with atrial septal defects and repair that involves atrial incisions including patients with transposition of the great arteries (TGA) and atrial switch. Accessory pathways and related arrhythmias are often associated with Ebstein's anomaly and congenitally corrected TGA. Monomorphic ventricular arrhythmias occur in patients with ventricular incisions, namely patients with Tetralogy of Fallot. Changes in surgical repair techniques influence arrhythmia prevalence and substrate as well as anatomical access for catheter ablation procedures. In addition, epidemiologic changes associated with improved long-term survival will further increase the prevalence of atrial fibrillation in ACHD. This article summarizes current understanding of prevalence of specific arrhythmias, underlying mechanisms, medical and interventional treatment options and their outcome in ACHD.

Revisiting Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Reviewing Lessons Learned and Redefining Therapeutic Paradigms.

Since the clinical use of digitalis as the first pharmacological therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) 235 years ago in 1785, antiarrhythmic drug therapy has advanced considerably and become a cornerstone of AF clinical management. Yet, a preventive or curative panacea for sustained AF does not exist despite the rise of AF global prevalence to epidemiological proportions. While multiple elevated risk factors for AF have been established, the natural history and etiology of AF remain incompletely understood. In the present article, the first section selectively highlights some disappointing shortcomings and current efforts in antiarrhythmic drug therapy to uncover reasons why AF is such a clinical challenge. The second section discusses some modern takes on the natural history of AF as a relentless, progressive fibro-inflammatory "atriomyopathy." The final section emphasizes the need to redefine therapeutic strategies on par with new insights of AF pathophysiology.

Evaluation of the Switch From Amiodarone to Dronedarone in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the ARTEMIS AF Studies.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antiarrhythmic drugs is timed to minimize arrhythmia recurrence and adverse reactions. Dronedarone and amiodarone have similar electrophysiological profiles; however, little is known about the optimal timing of switching, given the long half-life of amiodarone. METHODS: The ARTEMIS atrial fibrillation (AF) Loading and Long-term studies evaluated switching patients with paroxysmal/persistent AF from amiodarone to dronedarone. Patients were randomized based on the timing of the switch: immediate, after a 2-week, or after a 4-week washout of amiodarone. Patients who did not convert to sinus rhythm after amiodarone loading underwent electrical cardioversion. The primary objectives were, for the Loading study, to evaluate recurrence of AF ≤60 days; and for the Long-term study, to profile the pharmacokinetics of dronedarone and its metabolite according to different timings of dronedarone initiation. RESULTS: In ARTEMIS AF Loading, 176 were randomized (planned 768) after a 28 ± 2 days load of oral amiodarone. Atrial fibrillation recurrence trended less in the immediate switch versus 4-week washout group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65 [97.5% CI: 0.34-1.23]; P = .14) and in the 2-week washout versus the 4-week washout group (HR = 0.75 [97.5% CI: 0.41-1.37]; P = .32). In ARTEMIS AF Long-term, 108 patients were randomized (planned 105). Pharmacokinetic analyses (n = 97) showed no significant differences for dronedarone/SR35021 exposures in the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early due to poor recruitment and so our findings are limited by low numbers. However, immediate switching from amiodarone to dronedarone appeared to be well tolerated and safe.

Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: The CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial. METHODS: The authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Median age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).

Transtelephonic ECG Monitoring to Guide Outpatient Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Patients With Non-Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: Efficacy and Safety From a Single-Center Experience.

Initiation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AADx) for atrial fibrillation (AF) on an outpatient basis requires intensive ECG monitoring in order to assess antiarrhythmic efficacy as well as ECG signals of potential proarrhythmia. Dronedarone (DRO) reduces cardiovascular endpoints in AF patients fulfilling criteria of the ATHENA trial [1]. In the present study transtelephonic ECG monitoring was used to guide initiation of AADx in AF patients fulfilling the ATHENA criteria. In 19 consecutive patients (37% female; age 65+10 years; LVEF 62+7%; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 2.9 + 1.6 (median=2), with symptomatic non-permanent AF and additional cardiovascular risk factors, DRO was prescribed as AADx of first choice. Initiation of therapy and follow-up were monitored by transtelephonic ECG recordings (VITAPHONE™100 IR; Vitaphone GmbH; Germany). In patients with persistent AF, electrical cardioversion was performed on an outpatient basis when DRO was started. Patients were followed for changes in QT intervals as well as AF recurrency. ECGs were transmitted according to a scheduled FU form as well as any time in case of pts symptoms. Patients in whom DRO did not prevent AF recurrence were switched to alternative AADx, or to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), respectively. At the end of long-term follow-up, DRO alone was successful in preventing AF recurrence in 5 of 19 patients (26%). When pts who responded to AADx of second or third choice or who underwent PVI were included, SR could be maintained in 17/19 pts (89%). No patient required discontinuation of AADx due to ventricular depolarization abnormalities, symptomatic bradycardia or pathologic QT prolongation. In conclusion, transtelephonic ECG transmission is useful for close rhythm monitoring during initiation and follow-up of AADx, also during change from DRO to other AADx. DRO was effective to prevent AF recurrence in 26% of patients during a mean long-term follow-up of more than 30 months - which is well in line with data from the literature.