4.2 Article

Five-Year Outcomes of Catheter Ablation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 363-370

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jce.12602

关键词

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; heart failure; mortality; outcomes; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Catheter Ablation and Long-Term Outcomes BackgroundCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established therapy for symptomatic patients. The long-term efficacy and impact of catheter ablation among patients with severe systolic heart failure (SHF) requires additional study to understand if outcomes achieved at 1 year are maintained and mechanisms of AF recurrence. MethodsThree groups with SHF and 5 years of follow-up were matched 1:4:4 by age (5 years) and sex: AF ablation patients receiving their first ablation (n = 267), AF patients that did not receive an ablation (n = 1,068), and SHF patient without AF (n = 1,068). SHF was based upon clinical diagnosis and an ejection fraction (EF) 35%. Patients were followed for 5-year primary outcomes of AF recurrence, heart failure, stroke, death, and cardiac function. ResultsAt 5 years, 60.7% of patients had clinical recurrence of AF. Diabetes and a prior heart attack were significant predictors of long-term risk of AF recurrence. Long-term mortality rates were 27%, 55%, 50%, in the AF ablation, AF, and no AF groups, respectively (P < 0.0001), with the lower rates attributed to lower cardiovascular mortality. At 5 years, there was no difference in EF, yet HF hospitalizations were lower following AF ablation compared to patients with AF and no ablation. Stroke rates at 5 years trended to be lower in the AF ablation group, but the difference was not statistically significant. ConclusionRecurrence rates of AF in patients with SHF after ablation are common at 5 years with an anticipated ongoing increase. Long-term AF-related comorbidities tended to be less in the AF ablation group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据