Graham Lohrmann1, Albert Liu1, Paul Ziegler2, João Monteiro2, Nathan Varberg2, Rod Passman3,4,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 251 East Huron Street, Room 8-503, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 251 East Huron Street, Room 8-503, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. rod.passman@nm.org. 4. Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. rod.passman@nm.org. 5. Northwestern University Center for Arrhythmia Research, Chicago, IL, USA. rod.passman@nm.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few reliable risk stratification tools for successful atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (AFCA) and most prior studies have used short-term external monitors to define success. CHA2DS2VASc score may be useful in predicting AF recurrence. We investigated whether CHA2DS2VASc score correlates with AFCA success as measured by continuous monitoring via cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: Using the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (01/2007 to 06/2019) linked with the Medtronic CareLink™ database, we identified patients who underwent a 1st AFCA procedure following CIED implantation. Success was defined as absence of ≥ 1 h of AF following a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients (age 67 ± 9.1 years, 73.3% male, CHA2DS2VASc 3.6 ± 1.8, 36.9% paroxysmal AF) were analyzed and included 35.1% insertable cardiac monitor, 28.8% PPM, 21.4% ICD, 13.6% CRT-D, and 1.1% CRT-P. Success at 24 months post blanking period was 40.3% (95% CI 32.6-49.7%), 36.2% (95% CI 26.9-45.4%), and 21.8% (95% CI 14.6-32.5%) for CHA2DS2VASc subgroups of 0-2, 3-4, and ≥ 5, respectively. Median daily burden of AF was reduced to zero regardless of CHA2DS2VASc score, but there were significant differences in survival free from any AF ≥ 1 h between the three CHA2DS2VASc subgroups (p = 0.013). Patients with a score ≥ 5 had a HR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.67) for AF recurrence compared to patients with a score of 0-2, with similar results after controlling for AF type. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world patients with continuous monitoring undergoing AFCA, only CHA2DS2VASc scores ≥ 5 predicted higher AF recurrence.
BACKGROUND: There are few reliable risk stratification tools for successful atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (AFCA) and most prior studies have used short-term external monitors to define success. CHA2DS2VASc score may be useful in predicting AF recurrence. We investigated whether CHA2DS2VASc score correlates with AFCA success as measured by continuous monitoring via cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: Using the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (01/2007 to 06/2019) linked with the Medtronic CareLink™ database, we identified patients who underwent a 1st AFCA procedure following CIED implantation. Success was defined as absence of ≥ 1 h of AF following a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients (age 67 ± 9.1 years, 73.3% male, CHA2DS2VASc 3.6 ± 1.8, 36.9% paroxysmal AF) were analyzed and included 35.1% insertable cardiac monitor, 28.8% PPM, 21.4% ICD, 13.6% CRT-D, and 1.1% CRT-P. Success at 24 months post blanking period was 40.3% (95% CI 32.6-49.7%), 36.2% (95% CI 26.9-45.4%), and 21.8% (95% CI 14.6-32.5%) for CHA2DS2VASc subgroups of 0-2, 3-4, and ≥ 5, respectively. Median daily burden of AF was reduced to zero regardless of CHA2DS2VASc score, but there were significant differences in survival free from any AF ≥ 1 h between the three CHA2DS2VASc subgroups (p = 0.013). Patients with a score ≥ 5 had a HR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.67) for AF recurrence compared to patients with a score of 0-2, with similar results after controlling for AF type. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world patients with continuous monitoring undergoing AFCA, only CHA2DS2VASc scores ≥ 5 predicted higher AF recurrence.
Authors: Jelena Kornej; Gerhard Hindricks; M Benjamin Shoemaker; Daniela Husser; Arash Arya; Philipp Sommer; Sascha Rolf; Pablo Saavedra; Arvindh Kanagasundram; S Patrick Whalen; Jay Montgomery; Christopher R Ellis; Dawood Darbar; Andreas Bollmann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Hugh Calkins; Lin Y Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Karen L Furie; Paul A Heidenreich; Katherine T Murray; Julie B Shea; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; A John Camm; Andreas Goette; Axel Brandes; Lars Eckardt; Arif Elvan; Thomas Fetsch; Isabelle C van Gelder; Doreen Haase; Laurent M Haegeli; Frank Hamann; Hein Heidbüchel; Gerhard Hindricks; Josef Kautzner; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Lluis Mont; G Andre Ng; Jerzy Rekosz; Norbert Schoen; Ulrich Schotten; Anna Suling; Jens Taggeselle; Sakis Themistoclakis; Eik Vettorazzi; Panos Vardas; Karl Wegscheider; Stephan Willems; Harry J G M Crijns; Günter Breithardt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Arne Johannessen; Pekka Raatikainen; Gerhard Hindricks; Håkan Walfridsson; Steen Michael Pehrson; Anders Englund; Juha Hartikainen; Leif Spange Mortensen; Peter Steen Hansen Journal: Heart Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Douglas L Packer; Robert C Kowal; Kevin R Wheelan; James M Irwin; Jean Champagne; Peter G Guerra; Marc Dubuc; Vivek Reddy; Linda Nelson; Richard G Holcomb; John W Lehmann; Jeremy N Ruskin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel Steven; Thomas Rostock; Boris Lutomsky; Hanno Klemm; Helge Servatius; Imke Drewitz; Kai Friedrichs; Rodolfo Ventura; Thomas Meinertz; Stephan Willems Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-02-09 Impact factor: 29.983