Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and is a major public and represents a major public health problem with increasing healthcare costs and increased mortality risk.~In case of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation current guidelines recommend pulmonary-vein isolation (PVI) as invasive treatment option. However, 5-year arrhythmia-free survival estimate is 29% after single catheter ablation. Although the long-term success rates in maintaining sinus rhythm are higher than with drug-based rhythm control, they are still moderate, especially in older patients with comorbidities. Therefore, repeated interventions are often necessary.~An effective method for frequency control is atrioventricular (AV) node ablation after implantation of a pacemaker (ablate-and-pace). In this case, the ventricular rate is only set by the pacemaker and can be programmed according to the patient's needs.~There are some theoretical disadvantages of this treatment option (pacemaker dependency, reduction of cardiac outpout due to lack of atrial contraction) which is why this method nowadays is almost exclusively used in older (and physically less active) patients.~The ABLATE versus PACE trial is a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing at 196 these two treatment options in terms of rehospitalizations due to cardiovascular causes and quality of life in elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with normal ejection fraction (≥ 50%).
As patients age, symptom control and treatment of atrial fibrillation become equally difficult, often leading to increased hospitalization. ABLATE versus PACE is a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing pacemaker implantation with AV node ablation with pulmonary vein isolation in terms of rehospitalization and quality of life in patients with persistent AF aged 75 years and older.