Alexander C Perino1, George C Leef1, Andrew Cluckey1, Fahd N Yunus1, Mariam Askari2, Paul A Heidenreich1, Sanjiv M Narayan1, Paul J Wang1, Mintu P Turakhia3. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA. 2. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA. 3. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA; Center for Digital Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. Electronic address: mintu@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approaches, tools, and technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have evolved significantly since its inception. We sought to characterize secular trends in AF ablation success rates. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of AF ablation from January 1, 1990, to August 1, 2016, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Major exclusion criteria were insufficient outcome reporting and ablation strategies that were not prespecified and uniform. We stratified treatment arms by AF type (paroxysmal AF; nonparoxysmal AF) and analyzed single-procedure outcomes. Multivariate meta-regressions analyzed effects of study, patient, and procedure characteristics on success rate trends. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016036549). RESULTS: A total of 180 trials and observational studies with 28,118 patients met inclusion. For paroxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 73.1% in 2003 to 77.1% in 2016, increasing by 0.9%/year (95% CI 0.4%-1.4%; P = .001; I2 = 90%). After controlling for study design and patient demographics, rate of improvement in success rate summary estimate increased (1.6%/year; 95% CI 0.9%-2.2%; P = .001; I2 = 87%). For nonparoxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 70.0% in 2010 to 64.3% in 2016 (1.1%/year; 95% CI -1.3% to 3.5%; P = .37; I2 = 85%), with no improvement in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial research investment and health care expenditure, improvements in AF ablation success rates have been incremental. Meaningful improvements may require major paradigm or technology changes, and evaluation of clinical outcomes such as mortality and quality of life may prove to be important going forward. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Approaches, tools, and technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have evolved significantly since its inception. We sought to characterize secular trends in AF ablation success rates. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of AF ablation from January 1, 1990, to August 1, 2016, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Major exclusion criteria were insufficient outcome reporting and ablation strategies that were not prespecified and uniform. We stratified treatment arms by AF type (paroxysmal AF; nonparoxysmal AF) and analyzed single-procedure outcomes. Multivariate meta-regressions analyzed effects of study, patient, and procedure characteristics on success rate trends. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016036549). RESULTS: A total of 180 trials and observational studies with 28,118 patients met inclusion. For paroxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 73.1% in 2003 to 77.1% in 2016, increasing by 0.9%/year (95% CI 0.4%-1.4%; P = .001; I2 = 90%). After controlling for study design and patient demographics, rate of improvement in success rate summary estimate increased (1.6%/year; 95% CI 0.9%-2.2%; P = .001; I2 = 87%). For nonparoxysmal AF ablation studies, unadjusted success rate summary estimates ranged from 70.0% in 2010 to 64.3% in 2016 (1.1%/year; 95% CI -1.3% to 3.5%; P = .37; I2 = 85%), with no improvement in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial research investment and health care expenditure, improvements in AF ablation success rates have been incremental. Meaningful improvements may require major paradigm or technology changes, and evaluation of clinical outcomes such as mortality and quality of life may prove to be important going forward. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Sanjiv M Narayan; David E Krummen; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Paul Clopton; Wouter-Jan Rappel; John M Miller Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Andrea Natale; Vivek Y Reddy; George Monir; David J Wilber; Bruce D Lindsay; H Thomas McElderry; Charan Kantipudi; Moussa C Mansour; Daniel P Melby; Douglas L Packer; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Baohui Zhang; Robert B Stagg; Lee Ming Boo; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C Pappone; S Rosanio; G Oreto; M Tocchi; F Gugliotta; G Vicedomini; A Salvati; C Dicandia; P Mazzone; V Santinelli; S Gulletta; S Chierchia Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-11-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Haïssaguerre; P Jaïs; D C Shah; A Takahashi; M Hocini; G Quiniou; S Garrigue; A Le Mouroux; P Le Métayer; J Clémenty Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nassir F Marrouche; Johannes Brachmann; Dietrich Andresen; Jürgen Siebels; Lucas Boersma; Luc Jordaens; Béla Merkely; Evgeny Pokushalov; Prashanthan Sanders; Jochen Proff; Heribert Schunkert; Hildegard Christ; Jürgen Vogt; Dietmar Bänsch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Petr Neuzil; Sakis Themistoclakis; Stephan B Danik; Aldo Bonso; Antonio Rossillo; Antonio Raviele; Robert Schweikert; Sabine Ernst; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Andrea Natale Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Ghannam; Aman Chugh; David J Bradley; Thomas Crawford; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Hamid Ghanbari; Ryan Cunnane; Mohammed Saeed; Krit Jongnarangsin; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady; Hakan Oral Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Antonio Bisignani; Luigi Pannone; Gezim Bala; Shuichiro Kazawa; Paul Calburean; Ingrid Overeinder; Cinzia Monaco; Felicia Lipartiti; Vincenzo Miraglia; Sergio Rizzi; Maysam Al Housari; Joerelle Mojica; Antanas Strazdas; Thiago Guimarães Osório; Juan Sieira; Saverio Iacopino; Alexandre Almorad; Erwin Ströker; Antonio Sorgente; Pedro Brugada; Carlo de Asmundis; Gian-Battista Chierchia Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2021-08-10