BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.
BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoko Miyasaka; Marion E Barnes; Kent R Bailey; Stephen S Cha; Bernard J Gersh; James B Seward; Teresa S M Tsang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Peter A Noseworthy; Bernard J Gersh; David M Kent; Jonathan P Piccini; Douglas L Packer; Nilay D Shah; Xiaoxi Yao Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-04-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daniel B Mark; Kevin J Anstrom; Shubin Sheng; Jonathan P Piccini; Khaula N Baloch; Kristi H Monahan; Melanie R Daniels; Tristram D Bahnson; Jeanne E Poole; Yves Rosenberg; Kerry L Lee; Douglas L Packer Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pasquale Santangeli; Luigi Di Biase; Prasant Mohanty; J David Burkhardt; Rodney Horton; Rong Bai; Sanghamitra Mohanty; Agnes Pump; Douglas Gibson; Linda Couts; Richard Hongo; Salwa Beheiry; Andrea Natale Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2012-04-11
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Bradley G Hammill; Moritz F Sinner; Adrian F Hernandez; Allan J Walkey; Emelia J Benjamin; Lesley H Curtis; Susan R Heckbert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 29.983
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: Erica Zado; David J Callans; Michael Riley; Mathew Hutchinson; Fermin Garcia; Rupa Bala; David Lin; Joshua Cooper; Ralph Verdino; Andrea M Russo; Sanjay Dixit; Edward Gerstenfeld; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2008-05-05
Authors: David J Wilber; Carlo Pappone; Petr Neuzil; Angelo De Paola; Frank Marchlinski; Andrea Natale; Laurent Macle; Emile G Daoud; Hugh Calkins; Burr Hall; Vivek Reddy; Giuseppe Augello; Matthew R Reynolds; Chandan Vinekar; Christine Y Liu; Scott M Berry; Donald A Berry Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Zhen Li; Emily C O'Brien; Jessica Pritchard; Derek S Chew; T Jared Bunch; Daniel B Mark; Yelena Nabutovsky; Melissa A Greiner; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 6.343