| Literature DB >> 34397930 |
Xinlu Wang1, Zefeng Wang, Xiaohan Yan, Manyun Huang, Yongquan Wu.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation is considered to be the most common arrhythmia in the clinic, and it gradually increases with age. In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that atrial fibrillation may exacerbate the progression of cognitive dysfunction. The current guidelines recommend ablation for drug-refractory atrial fibrillation.We aimed to prospectively analyze changes in cognitive function in patients with atrial fibrillation following treatment using different ablation methods.A total of 139 patients, with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, were included in the study. The patients were divided into the drug therapy (n = 41) and catheter ablation (n = 98) groups, with the catheter ablation group further subdivided into radiofrequency ablation (n = 68) and cryoballoon (CY) ablation (n = 30). We evaluated cognitive function at baseline, 3- and 12-months follow-up using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified (TICS-m) test, then analyzed differences in cognitive function between the drug therapy and catheter ablation groups, to reveal the effect of the different ablation methods.We observed a significantly higher TICS-m score (39.56 ± 3.198) in the catheter ablation group at 12-month follow-up (P < .001), than the drug treatment group was. Additionally, we found no statistically significant differences in TICS-m scores between the radiofrequency ablation and CY groups at 3- and 12-month postoperatively (P > .05), although the two subgroups showed statistically significant cognitive function (P < .001).Overall, these findings indicated that radiofrequency and CY ablation improve cognitive function in patients with atrial fibrillation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34397930 PMCID: PMC8360464 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Baseline characteristics of patients in the drug treatment and catheter ablation groups.
| drug treatment (n = 41) | RFCA (n = 68) | CY (n = 30) | ||
| Male/n (%) | 22 (53.66%) | 56 (82.35%) | 19 (63.33%) | .005a,b |
| Age/yr | 64.51 ± 8.12 | 58.68 ± 8.46 | 61.00 ± 7.62 | .002a,b |
| BMI (kg/m2) | – | 26.33 ± 3.32 | 26.09 ± 2.85 | .730 |
| recurrence /n (%) | – | 18 (26.47%) | 5 (16.67%) | .291 |
| Persistent AF/n (%) | 22 (53.66%) | 16 (23.53%) | 6 (20.00%) | .001b |
| Hypertension/n (%) | 25 (60.98%) | 31 (45.59%) | 18 (60.00%) | .445 |
| Diabetes/n (%) | 14 (34.15%) | 13 (19.12%) | 5 (16.67%) | .127 |
| CHD/n (%) | 17 (41.46%) | 11 (16.18%) | 4 (13.33%) | .004b |
| Heart failure/n (%) | 10 (24.39%) | 10 (14.71%) | 6 (20.00%) | .209 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 2 (0, 5) | 1 (0, 4) | 2 (0, 6) | .000a,b |
| HAS-BLED score | 2 (0, 4) | 1 (0, 4) | 1 (0, 3) | .008a,b |
| Time of operation /minutes | – | 150 (89, 239) | 100.5 (70, 245) | .000 |
| LA short axis/mm | 41 (30,68) | 39 (28, 53) | 40 (25, 48) | .232 |
| LVEF (%) | – | 63 (32, 75) | 62.5 (54, 73) | .997 |
| Heart rate | – | 70 (52, 120) | 70 (50, 95) | .957 |
| The course of disease/month | 12 (48) | 24 (40) | 36 (63) | .273 |
| Smoking/n (%) | 16 (39.02%) | 20 (29.41%) | 20 (29.41%) | .076 |
| Drinking/n (%) | 14 (34.15%) | 22 (32.35%) | 22 (32.35%) | .934 |
| Anticoagulant therapy/n (%) | 21 (51.22%) | 38 (55.88%) | 14 (46.67%) | .764 |
| Antithrombotic drugs /n (%) | 13 (31.71%) | 26 (38.24%) | 10 (33.33%) | .643 |
| Antihypertensive drugs/n (%) | 20 (48.78%) | 25 (36.76%) | 17 (56.67%) | .154 |
| Hypoglycemic agent /n (%) | 10 (24.39%) | 10 (14.71%) | 3 (10.00%) | .232 |
| Lipid-lowering drugs /n (%) | 12 (29.27%) | 22 (32.35%) | 9 (30.00%) | .937 |
| TICS-m score at baseline | 36.41 ± 3.03 | 36.90 ± 2.97 | 36.90 ± 2.97 | .647 |
Cognitive function comparison between drug therapy group and catheter ablation group.
| Drug treatment | Catheter ablation | |||
| Baseline | 36.41 ± 3.033 | 36.74 ± 3.097 | 0.577 | .565 |
| 12-mo | 34.44 ± 3.271 | 39.56 ± 3.198 | 8.553 | .000 |
Figure 1Changes in cognitive function in the drug treatment group.
Comparison of cognitive function between the radiofrequency ablation group and the cryoballoon group.
| Difference | 95%CI | |||
| Groups | ||||
| Baseline | 0.497 | (−0.854, 1.848) | 0.533 | .467 |
| 3 mo | 0.475 | (−0.917, 1.868) | 0.460 | .499 |
| 12 mo | 0.136 | (−1.262, 1.535) | 0.037 | .847 |
| RFCA | ||||
| Time | 37.162 | |||
| Baseline vs 3 mo | −1.912 | (−2.727, −1.096) | ||
| Baseline vs 12 mo | −2.706 | (−3.479, −1.933) | ||
| 3 mo vs 12 mo | −0.794 | (−1.587, −0.001) | .049 | |
| CY | ||||
| Time | 20.547 | |||
| Baseline vs 3m | −1.933 | (−3.161, −0.705) | .001 | |
| Baseline vs 12 mo | −3.067 | (−4.230, −1.903) | ||
| 3 mo vs 12 mo | −1.133 | (−2.327, 0.060) | .068 | |
| Group × Time | 0.247 | .782 | ||
Radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon subgroup analysis of cognitive function.
| Total | Memory | Orientation | Language and Attention | |||||
| RFCA | CY | RFCA | CY | RFCA | CY | RFCA | CY | |
| Baseline | 36.897 ± 0.377 | 36.400 ± 0.467 | 6.765 ± 2.273 | 5.967 ± 0.656 | 12.485 ± 0.872 | 12.533 ± 0.900 | 14.882 ± 1.653 | 15.067 ± 1.964 |
| 3 mo | 38.809 ± 0.388 | 38.333 ± 0.584 | 8.059 ± 2.467 | 7.200 ± 2.976 | 12.602 ± 0.736 | 12.667 ± 0.844 | 15.485 ± 1.388 | 15.567 ± 1.591 |
| 12 mo | 39.603 ± 0.390 | 39.467 ± 0.587 | 8.647 ± 2.438 | 8.200 ± 2.987 | 12.618 ± 0.792 | 12.567 ± 0.774 | 15.632 ± 1.303 | 15.900 ± 1.398 |
| Overall analysis (F,P) | ||||||||
| Group | 0.372, 0.544 | 2.313, 0.132 | 0.019, 0.891 | 0.344, 0.559 | ||||
| Time | 49.552,0.000 | 32.157, 0.000 | 1.067, 0.346 | 22.584, 0.000 | ||||
| group∗time | 0.235, 0.790 | 0.369, 0.692 | 0.253, 0.771 | 0.298, 0.732 | ||||
| Groups | ||||||||
| Baseline | .467 | .132 | .804 | .632 | ||||
| 3 mo | .499 | .140 | .707 | .799 | ||||
| 12 mo | .847 | .414 | .768 | .362 | ||||
| Time | ||||||||
| 3 mo-baseline | .000 | .001 | .000 | .016 | .596 | .780 | .000 | .047 |
| 12 mo-baseline | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .390 | .993 | .000 | .001 |
| 12 mo-3mo | .049 | .068 | .118 | .063 | .998 | .861 | .528 | .188 |
Figure 2Changes in cognitive function in catheter ablation group.
Linear regression model of cognitive function changes after 12 months of drug treatment and catheter ablation.
| β (95%CI) | SE | ||
| Group | 4.944 (3.595, 6.292) | 0.681 | .000 |
| Sex | −0.566 (−2.118, 0.987) | 0.785 | .472 |
| Age | −0.054 (−0.130, 0.023) | 0.039 | .168 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc | −0.083 (−0.827, 0.661) | 0.376 | .825 |
| HAS-BLED score | −0.258 (−0.935, 0.420) | 0.343 | .454 |
| Type of AF | −0.657 (−1.895, 0.582) | 0.626 | .286 |
| CHD | −0.090 (−1.777, 1.597) | 0.853 | .916 |
Linear regression model of cognitive function changes between radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon at 3-month follow-up.
| β (95%CI) | SE | ||
| Group | −0.993 (−2.625, 0.639) | 0.822 | .230 |
| Surgery time | −0.012 (−0.032, 0.008) | 0.010 | .233 |
Linear regression model of the cognitive function changes between radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon at 12-month follow-up.
| β (95%CI) | SE | ||
| Group | −1.057 (−2.670, 0.555) | 0.812 | .196 |
| Surgery time | −0.021 (−1.777, 1.597) | 0.010 | .033 |