BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (ABL) for non-valvular (NV) atrial fibrillation (AF) improves rhythm control. Our aim was to compare re-hospitalization for heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or recurrent AF among patients with NVAF who underwent ABL versus controls. METHODS: From the Office of Statewide Planning and Development (OSHPD) database, we identified all patients who had at least one hospitalization for AF between 2005-2013. Patients who subsequently underwent ABL were compared to controls (up to fivematched controls by age, sex and duration of AF between diagnosis and time of ABL). Cases with valve disease, open maze, other arrhythmias, or implanted cardiac devices were excluded. Pre-specified clinical outcomes including readmission for HF, ACS, severe or simple AF (severe = with HF or ACS; simple= without HF or ACS)were assessed using a weighted proportional hazard model adjusting for number of hospital admissions with AF before the ABL, calendar year of ABL, and presence of chronic comorbidities. RESULTS: The study population constituted 8338 cases and controls, with mean 3.5+ 1 patient-year follow up. In the ABL cohort, there was lower risk of re-hospitalizations for HF, HR=0.55(95%CI: 0.43-0.69,); ACS,HR=0.5(95%CI: 0.35-0.72,); severe AF [HR=0.86 (CI:0.74-0.99), and higher for simple AF, HR=1.25 (CI:1.18-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF,although ABL is associated with increased risk of re-hospitalization for simple AF, ABL was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of re-hospitalization for HF, ACS and severe AF. These findingsrequireconfirmation in a prospective clinical trial.
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (ABL) for non-valvular (NV) atrial fibrillation (AF) improves rhythm control. Our aim was to compare re-hospitalization for heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or recurrent AF among patients with NVAF who underwent ABL versus controls. METHODS: From the Office of Statewide Planning and Development (OSHPD) database, we identified all patients who had at least one hospitalization for AF between 2005-2013. Patients who subsequently underwent ABL were compared to controls (up to fivematched controls by age, sex and duration of AF between diagnosis and time of ABL). Cases with valve disease, open maze, other arrhythmias, or implanted cardiac devices were excluded. Pre-specified clinical outcomes including readmission for HF, ACS, severe or simple AF (severe = with HF or ACS; simple= without HF or ACS)were assessed using a weighted proportional hazard model adjusting for number of hospital admissions with AF before the ABL, calendar year of ABL, and presence of chronic comorbidities. RESULTS: The study population constituted 8338 cases and controls, with mean 3.5+ 1 patient-year follow up. In the ABL cohort, there was lower risk of re-hospitalizations for HF, HR=0.55(95%CI: 0.43-0.69,); ACS,HR=0.5(95%CI: 0.35-0.72,); severe AF [HR=0.86 (CI:0.74-0.99), and higher for simple AF, HR=1.25 (CI:1.18-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF,although ABL is associated with increased risk of re-hospitalization for simple AF, ABL was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of re-hospitalization for HF, ACS and severe AF. These findingsrequireconfirmation in a prospective clinical trial.
Authors: M Vasatova; R Pudil; M Tichy; T Buchler; J M Horacek; L Haman; P Parizek; V Palicka Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Jason G Andrade; Denis Roy; D George Wyse; Jean-Claude Tardif; Mario Talajic; Hugues Leduc; Julia-Cadrin Tourigny; Azadeh Shohoudi; Marc Dubuc; Léna Rivard; Peter G Guerra; Bernard Thibault; Katia Dyrda; Laurent Macle; Paul Khairy Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Peter A Noseworthy; Suraj Kapa; Lindsey R Haas; Holly Van Houten; Abhishek J Deshmuk; Siva K Mulpuru; Christopher J McLeod; Samuel J Asirvatham; Paul A Friedman; Nilay D Shah; Douglas L Packer Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Shadi Al Halabi; Mohammed Qintar; Ayman Hussein; M Chadi Alraies; David G Jones; Tom Wong; Michael R MacDonald; Mark C Petrie; Daniel Cantillon; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Mohamed Kanj; Mandeep Bhargava; Niraj Varma; Bryan Baranowski; Bruce L Wilkoff; Oussama Wazni; Thomas Callahan; Walid Saliba; Mina K Chung Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-06-01
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Ramachandran S Vasan; Eric P Leip; Philip A Wolf; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joanne M Murabito; William B Kannel; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-05-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Luigi Di Biase; Prasant Mohanty; Sanghamitra Mohanty; Pasquale Santangeli; Chintan Trivedi; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Madhu Reddy; Pierre Jais; Sakis Themistoclakis; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella; Gemma Pelargonio; Maria Lucia Narducci; Robert Schweikert; Petr Neuzil; Javier Sanchez; Rodney Horton; Salwa Beheiry; Richard Hongo; Steven Hao; Antonio Rossillo; Giovanni Forleo; Claudio Tondo; J David Burkhardt; Michel Haissaguerre; Andrea Natale Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lisa W M Leung; Ryan J Imhoff; Howard J Marshall; Diana Frame; Peter J Mallow; Laura Goldstein; Tom Wei; Maria Velleca; Hannah Taylor; Mark M Gallagher Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 2.942