BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools are needed to select the right candidates for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Both the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores have utility in predicting AF-related outcomes and guiding anticoagulation treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether these risk scores predict long-term outcomes after AF ablation and whether one risk score provides comparatively superior performance. METHODS: CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were calculated in 2179 patients who underwent a first ablation procedure for AF enrolled in the Intermountain Heart Collaborative Study. CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were categorized as 0-1, 2-4, and ≥5. Patient outcomes were analyzed over 5 years for AF/atrial flutter recurrence and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: composite of death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization). RESULTS: The mean age was 65.7 ± 10.5 years, and 61.1% were men. Both scores incrementally predicted risk of AF recurrence, stroke, heart failure, and death at 5 years. Increasing CHADS2 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; P < .001) and CHA2DS2-VASc (HR 1.15; P < .0001) scores were both associated with AF/atrial flutter recurrence. The results were similar for MACE where increasing CHADS2 (HR 1.54; P < .0001) and CHA2DS2-VASc (HR 1.32; P < .0001) scores were associated with risk. When CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were modeled together, only CHA2DS2-VASc scores significantly predicted AF recurrence (HR 1.13; P = .001), but both were associated with MACE. CONCLUSION: Both the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were excellent in stratifying patients for 5-year outcomes after AF ablation. However, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was superior to the CHADS2 score in predicting AF recurrence and AF-related morbidities.
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools are needed to select the right candidates for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Both the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores have utility in predicting AF-related outcomes and guiding anticoagulation treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether these risk scores predict long-term outcomes after AF ablation and whether one risk score provides comparatively superior performance. METHODS: CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were calculated in 2179 patients who underwent a first ablation procedure for AF enrolled in the Intermountain Heart Collaborative Study. CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were categorized as 0-1, 2-4, and ≥5. Patient outcomes were analyzed over 5 years for AF/atrial flutter recurrence and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: composite of death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization). RESULTS: The mean age was 65.7 ± 10.5 years, and 61.1% were men. Both scores incrementally predicted risk of AF recurrence, stroke, heart failure, and death at 5 years. Increasing CHADS2 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; P < .001) and CHA2DS2-VASc (HR 1.15; P < .0001) scores were both associated with AF/atrial flutter recurrence. The results were similar for MACE where increasing CHADS2 (HR 1.54; P < .0001) and CHA2DS2-VASc (HR 1.32; P < .0001) scores were associated with risk. When CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were modeled together, only CHA2DS2-VASc scores significantly predicted AF recurrence (HR 1.13; P = .001), but both were associated with MACE. CONCLUSION: Both the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were excellent in stratifying patients for 5-year outcomes after AF ablation. However, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was superior to the CHADS2 score in predicting AF recurrence and AF-related morbidities.
Authors: Andreas Goette; Jonathan M Kalman; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph Akar; Jose Angel Cabrera; Shih Ann Chen; Sumeet S Chugh; Domenico Corradi; Andre D'Avila; Dobromir Dobrev; Guilherme Fenelon; Mario Gonzalez; Stephane N Hatem; Robert Helm; Gerhard Hindricks; Siew Yen Ho; Brian Hoit; Jose Jalife; Young-Hoon Kim; Gregory Y H Lip; Chang-Sheng Ma; Gregory M Marcus; Katherine Murray; Akihiko Nogami; Prashanthan Sanders; William Uribe; David R Van Wagoner; Stanley Nattel Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Rosita Zakeri; David R Van Wagoner; Hugh Calkins; Tom Wong; Heather M Ross; E Kevin Heist; Timothy E Meyer; Peter R Kowey; Robert J Mentz; John G Cleland; Bertram Pitt; Faiez Zannad; Cecilia Linde Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Yenn-Jiang Lin; Marcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Alberto Alfie; Serge Boveda; Nikolaos Dagres; Dario Di Toro; Lee L Eckhardt; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Carina Hardy; Takanori Ikeda; Aparna Jaswal; Elizabeth Kaufman; Andrew Krahn; Kengo Kusano; Valentina Kutyifa; Han S Lim; Gregory Y H Lip; Santiago Nava-Townsend; Hui-Nam Pak; Gerardo Rodríguez Diez; William Sauer; Anil Saxena; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Diego Vanegas; Marmar Vaseghi; Arthur Wilde; T Jared Bunch; Alfred E Buxton; Gonzalo Calvimontes; Tze-Fan Chao; Lars Eckardt; Heidi Estner; Anne M Gillis; Rodrigo Isa; Josef Kautzner; Philippe Maury; Joshua D Moss; Gi-Byung Nam; Brian Olshansky; Luis Fernando Pava Molano; Mauricio Pimentel; Mukund Prabhu; Wendy S Tzou; Philipp Sommer; Janice Swampillai; Alejandro Vidal; Thomas Deneke; Gerhard Hindricks; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Ingrid E Christophersen; Xiaoyan Yin; Martin G Larson; Steven A Lubitz; Jared W Magnani; David D McManus; Patrick T Ellinor; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.749