Rajeev K Pathak1, Melissa E Middeldorp1, Dennis H Lau1, Abhinav B Mehta2, Rajiv Mahajan1, Darragh Twomey1, Muayad Alasady3, Lorraine Hanley1, Nicholas A Antic4, R Doug McEvoy4, Jonathan M Kalman5, Walter P Abhayaratna6, Prashanthan Sanders7. 1. Centre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 2. Research School of Finance, Actuarial Studies and Applied Statistics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 3. Centre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia; Research School of Finance, Actuarial Studies and Applied Statistics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 4. Adelaide Institute for Sleep Health, Repatriation General Hospital and Department of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Department of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Australian National University and Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia. 7. Centre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: prash.sanders@adelaide.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term outcome of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation demonstrates attrition. This outcome may be due to failure to attenuate the progressive substrate promoted by cardiovascular risk factors. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of risk factor and weight management on AF ablation outcomes. METHODS: Of 281 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation, 149 with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m(2) and ≥1 cardiac risk factor were offered risk factor management (RFM) according to American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. After AF ablation, all 61 patients who opted for RFM and 88 control subjects were assessed every 3 to 6 months by clinic review and 7-day Holter monitoring. Changes in the Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale scores were determined. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics, number of procedures, or follow-up duration between the groups (p = NS). RFM resulted in greater reductions in weight (p = 0.002) and blood pressure (p = 0.006), and better glycemic control (p = 0.001) and lipid profiles (p = 0.01). At follow-up, AF frequency, duration, symptoms, and symptom severity decreased more in the RFM group compared with the control group (all p < 0.001). Single-procedure drug-unassisted arrhythmia-free survival was greater in RFM patients compared with control subjects (p < 0.001). Multiple-procedure arrhythmia-free survival was markedly better in RFM patients compared with control subjects (p < 0.001), with 16% and 42.4%, respectively, using antiarrhythmic drugs (p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, type of AF (p < 0.001) and RFM (hazard ratio 4.8 [95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 11.4]; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of arrhythmia-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive RFM improved the long-term success of AF ablation. This study underscores the importance of therapy directed at the primary promoters of the AF substrate to facilitate rhythm control strategies.
BACKGROUND: The long-term outcome of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation demonstrates attrition. This outcome may be due to failure to attenuate the progressive substrate promoted by cardiovascular risk factors. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of risk factor and weight management on AF ablation outcomes. METHODS: Of 281 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation, 149 with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m(2) and ≥1 cardiac risk factor were offered risk factor management (RFM) according to American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. After AF ablation, all 61 patients who opted for RFM and 88 control subjects were assessed every 3 to 6 months by clinic review and 7-day Holter monitoring. Changes in the Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale scores were determined. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics, number of procedures, or follow-up duration between the groups (p = NS). RFM resulted in greater reductions in weight (p = 0.002) and blood pressure (p = 0.006), and better glycemic control (p = 0.001) and lipid profiles (p = 0.01). At follow-up, AF frequency, duration, symptoms, and symptom severity decreased more in the RFM group compared with the control group (all p < 0.001). Single-procedure drug-unassisted arrhythmia-free survival was greater in RFM patients compared with control subjects (p < 0.001). Multiple-procedure arrhythmia-free survival was markedly better in RFM patients compared with control subjects (p < 0.001), with 16% and 42.4%, respectively, using antiarrhythmic drugs (p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, type of AF (p < 0.001) and RFM (hazard ratio 4.8 [95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 11.4]; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of arrhythmia-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive RFM improved the long-term success of AF ablation. This study underscores the importance of therapy directed at the primary promoters of the AF substrate to facilitate rhythm control strategies.
Authors: Dominik Linz; Holger Woehrle; Thomas Bitter; Henrik Fox; Martin R Cowie; Michael Böhm; Olaf Oldenburg Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Lien Desteghe; Jeroen M L Hendriks; R Doug McEvoy; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Paul Dendale; Prashanthan Sanders; Hein Heidbuchel; Dominik Linz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Elijah E Sanches; Besir Topal; Frank W de Jongh; Eylem Cagiltay; Alper Celik; Magnus Sundbom; Rui Ribeiro; Chetan Parmar; Surendra Ugale; Kamal Mahawar; Marc P Buise; Lukas R Dekker; Dharmanand Ramnarain; Sjaak Pouwels Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Liang-Han Ling; Peter M Kistler; Jonathan M Kalman; Richard J Schilling; Ross J Hunter Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 32.419