Skip to content
Evevident
Original paper
2019JAMACardiology

CABANA

Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation

RCTAtrial fibrillation

On this page

Overview

AF ablation did not significantly reduce the primary composite versus drug therapy by intention-to-treat.

Clinical takeaway

CABANA is the key nuance trial for AF ablation: ablation improves rhythm and symptoms, but intention-to-treat clinical outcome superiority was not clearly shown.

Key result

The primary composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest was not significantly reduced by ablation.

Practice impact

Use AF ablation mainly for symptoms and selected rhythm-control goals, not as a blanket mortality strategy.

Evidence

Study design

Randomized open-label trial.

Enrollment

2,204

Follow-up

Median 48.5 months.

Geography

Multinational

Clinical question

Does catheter ablation improve major clinical outcomes compared with drug therapy in atrial fibrillation?

Population

  • Patients with new-onset or undertreated atrial fibrillation requiring therapy and at least one stroke risk factor or age 65 years or older.

Intervention

Catheter ablation.

Comparator

Rate-control or rhythm-control drug therapy.

Primary outcome

Composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.

Catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary clinical composite versus drug therapy by intention-to-treat.

Hazard ratio / 0.86 / CI 95% CI 0.65-1.15 / p=0.30

Key results

  • Primary composite was not significantly reduced in the intention-to-treat analysis.
  • AF recurrence was lower after ablation.
  • Treatment crossover was substantial and complicates interpretation.

Harms

  • Ablation carries procedural risks including tamponade, vascular complications, and rare stroke.
  • Drug therapy carries antiarrhythmic adverse effects and discontinuation risk.

Clinical Use

When to cite

  • When counseling patients that AF ablation is primarily a symptom/rhythm strategy, not guaranteed outcome prevention.

Practice impact

  • Anchors shared decision-making around AF ablation for symptoms, rhythm burden, and selected patient goals.

Applicability

  • Symptomatic AF patients considering ablation versus continued medical therapy.

Limitations

  • Open-label design and high crossover dilute intention-to-treat comparisons.
  • Does not negate ablation benefit in selected heart-failure or highly symptomatic subgroups studied elsewhere.

Common misinterpretations

  • Do not summarize CABANA as ablation is useless; symptom and recurrence benefits still matter.

Related evidence

AFFIRM - ContextEAST-AFNET 4 - Context

Citation

Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA, et al. Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(13):1261-1274. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0693