Steffen Blum1, Pascal Meyre2, Stefanie Aeschbacher2, Sebastian Berger2, Chloé Auberson3, Matthias Briel4, Stefan Osswald2, David Conen5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: conend@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More sustained forms of atrial fibrillation (AF) are less amenable to treatment and associated with worse outcomes, but the incidence and predictors of AF progression are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the incidence and predictors of AF progression. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2017. AF progression was defined as progression from paroxysmal to persistent/permanent AF or as progression from persistent to permanent AF. Random effect models were used to calculate pooled cumulative incidence rates. Predictors related to between-study variability were assessed using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 47 studies with 27,266 patients who were followed for 105,912 patient-years. The pooled incidence of AF progression was 8.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-9.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; I2 = 98%; P < .0001). The incidence was 7.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 6.2-8.0 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; across 42 studies) for progression from paroxysmal to non-paroxysmal AF as compared with 18.6 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 8.9-28.3 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; across 5 studies) for progression from persistent to permanent AF. Higher age (β = 5.4; 95% CI 1.4-9.4; P = .01; R2 = 14.3%) and the prevalence of hypertension (β = 5.2; 95% CI 1.0-9.4; P = .02; R2 = 18.0%) were associated with a higher AF progression rate. Follow-up duration (β = -4.5; 95% CI -5.8 to -3.3; P < .0001; R2 = 68.0%) and the prevalence of paroxysmal AF (β = -9.5; 95% CI -18.7 to -0.3; P = .04; R2 = 4.4%) were inversely associated with AF progression. Together these variables explained 73.8% of the observed between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of AF progression appears to be relatively low, and the incidence seems to decrease with longer follow-up duration. Age, hypertension, baseline AF type, and follow-up duration explained a high percentage of the observed between-study heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND: More sustained forms of atrial fibrillation (AF) are less amenable to treatment and associated with worse outcomes, but the incidence and predictors of AF progression are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the incidence and predictors of AF progression. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2017. AF progression was defined as progression from paroxysmal to persistent/permanent AF or as progression from persistent to permanent AF. Random effect models were used to calculate pooled cumulative incidence rates. Predictors related to between-study variability were assessed using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 47 studies with 27,266 patients who were followed for 105,912 patient-years. The pooled incidence of AF progression was 8.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-9.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; I2 = 98%; P < .0001). The incidence was 7.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 6.2-8.0 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; across 42 studies) for progression from paroxysmal to non-paroxysmal AF as compared with 18.6 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 8.9-28.3 per 100 patient-years of follow-up; across 5 studies) for progression from persistent to permanent AF. Higher age (β = 5.4; 95% CI 1.4-9.4; P = .01; R2 = 14.3%) and the prevalence of hypertension (β = 5.2; 95% CI 1.0-9.4; P = .02; R2 = 18.0%) were associated with a higher AF progression rate. Follow-up duration (β = -4.5; 95% CI -5.8 to -3.3; P < .0001; R2 = 68.0%) and the prevalence of paroxysmal AF (β = -9.5; 95% CI -18.7 to -0.3; P = .04; R2 = 4.4%) were inversely associated with AF progression. Together these variables explained 73.8% of the observed between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of AF progression appears to be relatively low, and the incidence seems to decrease with longer follow-up duration. Age, hypertension, baseline AF type, and follow-up duration explained a high percentage of the observed between-study heterogeneity.
Authors: Vincenzo Livio Malavasi; Elisa Fantecchi; Virginia Tordoni; Laura Melara; Andrea Barbieri; Marco Vitolo; Gregory Y H Lip; Giuseppe Boriani Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Steffen Blum; Stefanie Aeschbacher; Pascal Meyre; Leon Zwimpfer; Tobias Reichlin; Jürg H Beer; Peter Ammann; Angelo Auricchio; Richard Kobza; Paul Erne; Giorgio Moschovitis; Marcello Di Valentino; Dipen Shah; Jürg Schläpfer; Selina Henz; Christine Meyer-Zürn; Laurent Roten; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Christian Sticherling; Michael Kühne; Stefan Osswald; David Conen Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Ruben R De With; Ömer Erküner; Michiel Rienstra; Bao-Oanh Nguyen; Frank W J Körver; Dominik Linz; Hugo Cate Ten; Henri Spronk; Abraham A Kroon; Alexander H Maass; Yuri Blaauw; Robert G Tieleman; Martin E W Hemels; Joris R de Groot; Arif Elvan; Mirko de Melis; Coert O S Scheerder; Meelad I H Al-Jazairi; Ulrich Schotten; Justin G L M Luermans; Harry J G M Crijns; Isabelle C Van Gelder Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Eva María Cirugeda Roldan; Sofía Calero; Víctor Manuel Hidalgo; José Enero; José Joaquín Rieta; Raúl Alcaraz Journal: Entropy (Basel) Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 2.524
Authors: Steffen Blum; Stefanie Aeschbacher; Michael Coslovsky; Pascal B Meyre; Philipp Reddiess; Peter Ammann; Paul Erne; Giorgio Moschovitis; Marcello Di Valentino; Dipen Shah; Jürg Schläpfer; Rahel Müller; Jürg H Beer; Richard Kobza; Leo H Bonati; Elisavet Moutzouri; Nicolas Rodondi; Christine Meyer-Zürn; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Stefan Osswald; David Conen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 4.379