4.0 Article

Type of Atrial Fibrillation and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Journal

ANNALS OF NONINVASIVE ELECTROCARDIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 519-525

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/anec.12345

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; oral anticoagulation; stroke; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThere are limited data available regarding the relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) clinical type, oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment, and clinical outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The study was designed to evaluate this relationship. MethodsWe analyzed data from the Rabin Medical Center TAVR registry, including 319 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR from 2008 to 2014. Patients were divided into three groups based on their history of AF: sinus rhythm (SR), paroxysmal AF (PAF), or nonparoxysmal AF (NPAF). ResultsThere were 211 (66%), 56 (18%), and 52 (16%) patients in the SR, PAF, and NPAF groups, respectively. The cumulative risk for stroke or death at 2 years was highest among patients with NPAF (38%), but similarly low in PAF (15%) and SR patients (16%, P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, patients with NPAF demonstrated a significantly higher risk of stroke or death (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.63-4.66, P < 0.001), as compared with SR. In contrast, patients with PAF had a similar risk of stroke or death compared with SR (HR = 0.80, P = 0.508). Patients with NPAF not treated with OAC demonstrated an 8.3-fold (P < 0.001) increased risk of stroke or death, whereas patients with PAF not treated with OAC had a similar risk of stroke or death compared with the SR group (HR = 1.25, P = 0.569). ConclusionHistory of NPAF, but not PAF, is associated with a significant increased risk of stroke or death compared with sinus rhythm in patients undergoing TAVR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available