English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

73 Atrial fibrillation has been consolidated in recent decades as a serious public health problem, considering its notorious increase in prevalence with aging combined with increased population survival. Data from the Framingham Heart Study indicate that, even in an optimal scenario of absence of classic risk factors for its occurrences, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, about 10% of individuals aged 80 or over and about 25% of those aged 90 or over will have atrial fibrillation1. These rates substantially increase when added to single or combined risk factors. Despite its already well-known association with the occurrence of thromboembolic stroke2, the presence of atrial fibrillation has been identified as an independent mortality risk factor in large population studies3. In September 2005, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the United States, considering the epidemiological importance of atrial fibrillation and the increase in the number of patients submitted to treatment by percutaneous ablation, convened a task force responsible for evaluating the role of ablation in the treatment of this arrhythmia. As the role of ablation in maintaining sinus rhythm has been defined in several studies4, this task force recommended a large study to establish its impact on mortality reduction. After the implementation of a pilot study (CABANA Pilot Study) that in fact endorsed the superiority of ablation in maintaining sinus rhythm compared to pharmacological treatment, the National Institute for Health approved the funding of the Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA Trial), with the support of the catheter, devices and mapping systems industry. The results of this study were eagerly awaited by the community of atrial fibrillation researchers from all over the world, considering the types of outcomes evaluated and the reliability of results that would be brought by a potentially correct design under the methodological aspect. This reflection is essential since, over the years, several studies have been carried out on the subject, but most of them have a great weakness of scientific credibility, given Reflections on CABANA Trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial)