Roger A Winkle1, Julian W E Jarman2, R Hardwin Mead3, Gregory Engel3, Melissa H Kong3, William Fleming3, Rob A Patrawala3. 1. Silicon Valley Cardiology, E. Palo Alto, California; Sequoia Hospital, Redwood City, California. Electronic address: rawinkle@aol.com. 2. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 3. Silicon Valley Cardiology, E. Palo Alto, California; Sequoia Hospital, Redwood City, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with a variety of clinical presentations undergo atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Long-term ablation success rates can vary considerably. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical scoring system to predict long-term freedom from AF after ablation. METHODS: We retrospectively derived the scoring system on a development cohort (DC) of 1125 patients undergoing AF ablation and tested it prospectively in a test cohort (TC) of 937 patients undergoing AF ablation. RESULTS: The demographics of the DC patients were as follows: age 62.3 ± 10.3 years, male sex 801 (71.2%), left atrial size 4.30 ± 0.69 cm, paroxysmal AF 348 (30.9%), number of drugs failed 1.3 ± 1.1, hypertension 525 (46.7%), diabetes 100 (8.9%), prior stroke/transient ischemic attack 78 (6.9%), prior cardioversion 528 (46.9%), and CHADS2 score 0.87 ± 0.97. Multivariate analysis showed 6 independent variables predicting freedom from AF after final ablation: coronary artery disease (P = .021), atrial diameter (P = .0003), age (P = .004), persistent or long-standing AF (P < .0001), number of antiarrhythmic drugs failed (P < .0001), and female sex (P = .0001). We created a scoring system (CAAP-AF) using these 6 variables, with scores ranging from 0 to 13 points. The 2-year AF-free rates by CAAP-AF scores were as follows: 0 = 100%, 1 = 95.7%, 2 = 96.3%, 3 = 83.1%, 4 = 85.5%, 5 = 79.9%, 6 = 76.1%, 7 = 63.4%, 8 = 51.1%, 9 = 53.6%, and ≥10 = 29.1%. Ablation success decreased as CAAP-AF scores increased (P < .0001). The CAAP-AF score also predicted freedom from AF in the TC. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier AF-free rates by CAAP-AF scores were as follows: 0 = 100%, 1 = 87.0%, 2 = 89.0%, 3 = 91.6%, 4 = 90.5%, 5 = 84.4%, 6 = 70.1%, 7 = 71.0%, 8 = 60.7%, 9 = 68.9%, and ≥10 = 51.3%. As CAAP-AF scores increased, 2-year freedom from AF in the TC decreased (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: An easily determined clinical scoring system was derived retrospectively and applied prospectively. The CAAP-AF score predicted freedom from AF after ablation in both a DC and a TC of patients undergoing AF ablation. The CAAP-AF score provides a realistic AF ablation outcome expectation for individual patients.
BACKGROUND:Patients with a variety of clinical presentations undergo atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Long-term ablation success rates can vary considerably. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical scoring system to predict long-term freedom from AF after ablation. METHODS: We retrospectively derived the scoring system on a development cohort (DC) of 1125 patients undergoing AF ablation and tested it prospectively in a test cohort (TC) of 937 patients undergoing AF ablation. RESULTS: The demographics of the DC patients were as follows: age 62.3 ± 10.3 years, male sex 801 (71.2%), left atrial size 4.30 ± 0.69 cm, paroxysmal AF 348 (30.9%), number of drugs failed 1.3 ± 1.1, hypertension 525 (46.7%), diabetes 100 (8.9%), prior stroke/transient ischemic attack 78 (6.9%), prior cardioversion 528 (46.9%), and CHADS2 score 0.87 ± 0.97. Multivariate analysis showed 6 independent variables predicting freedom from AF after final ablation: coronary artery disease (P = .021), atrial diameter (P = .0003), age (P = .004), persistent or long-standing AF (P < .0001), number of antiarrhythmic drugs failed (P < .0001), and female sex (P = .0001). We created a scoring system (CAAP-AF) using these 6 variables, with scores ranging from 0 to 13 points. The 2-year AF-free rates by CAAP-AF scores were as follows: 0 = 100%, 1 = 95.7%, 2 = 96.3%, 3 = 83.1%, 4 = 85.5%, 5 = 79.9%, 6 = 76.1%, 7 = 63.4%, 8 = 51.1%, 9 = 53.6%, and ≥10 = 29.1%. Ablation success decreased as CAAP-AF scores increased (P < .0001). The CAAP-AF score also predicted freedom from AF in the TC. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier AF-free rates by CAAP-AF scores were as follows: 0 = 100%, 1 = 87.0%, 2 = 89.0%, 3 = 91.6%, 4 = 90.5%, 5 = 84.4%, 6 = 70.1%, 7 = 71.0%, 8 = 60.7%, 9 = 68.9%, and ≥10 = 51.3%. As CAAP-AF scores increased, 2-year freedom from AF in the TC decreased (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: An easily determined clinical scoring system was derived retrospectively and applied prospectively. The CAAP-AF score predicted freedom from AF after ablation in both a DC and a TC of patients undergoing AF ablation. The CAAP-AF score provides a realistic AF ablation outcome expectation for individual patients.
Authors: Luisa Ciuffo; Susumu Tao; Esra Gucuk Ipek; Tarek Zghaib; Muhammad Balouch; Joao A C Lima; Saman Nazarian; David D Spragg; Joseph E Marine; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Hiroshi Ashikaga Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01-17
Authors: John H Rosenberg; John H Werner; Gilman D Plitt; Victoria V Noble; Jordan T Spring; Brooke A Stephens; Aleem Siddique; Helenmari L Merritt-Genore; Michael J Moulton; Devendra K Agrawal Journal: Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther Date: 2018-12-29
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; Emelia J Benjamin; Alfred E Buxton; Hugh Calkins; Mina K Chung; Anne B Curtis; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Pierre Jais; Douglas L Packer; Jonathan P Piccini; Yves Rosenberg; Andrea M Russo; Paul J Wang; Lawton S Cooper; Alan S Go Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Julie K Shade; Rheeda L Ali; Dante Basile; Dan Popescu; Tauseef Akhtar; Joseph E Marine; David D Spragg; Hugh Calkins; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-06-14
Authors: Andrea M Russo; Emily P Zeitler; Anna Giczewska; Adam P Silverstein; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Yong-Mei Cha; Kristi H Monahan; Tristram D Bahnson; Daniel B Mark; Douglas L Packer; Jeanne E Poole Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Allan Bohm; Lubos Urban; Lubomira Tothova; Ljuba Bacharova; Peter Musil; Jan Kyselovic; Peter Michalek; Tomas Uher; Branislav Bezak; Peter Olejnik; Robert Hatala Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 1.900