| 11. |
- Tilz, Roland Richard, et al.
(author)
-
Which patients with atrial fibrillation undergo an ablation procedure today in Europe? : A report from the ESC-EHRA-EORP Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Long-Term and Atrial Fibrillation General Pilot Registries
- 2020
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 22:2, s. 250-258
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AimsRhythm control management in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be unequal across Europe. The aim of this study was to investigate how selective the patient cohort referred for AF ablation is, as compared to the general AF population in Europe, and to describe the governing mechanisms for such selection.Methods and resultsDescriptive comparative statistical analyses of the baseline characteristics were performed between the cohorts of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Long-Term (ESC EORP AFA-LT) registry, designed to provide a picture of contemporary real-world AF ablation, and the AF population from the AF-General (ESC EORP AF-Gen) pilot registry. Data collection was performed using a web-based system. In the AFA and in the Atrial Fibrillation General (AFG) pilot registries, 3593 and 3049 patients were enrolled, respectively. Patients who underwent AF ablation were younger, more commonly male, and had significantly less comorbidities. Atrial Fibrillation Ablation patients often presented without comorbidities, resulting in a lower risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥5: 2.9% vs. 24.5%, all P < 0.001) and bleeding (HAS-BLED ≥2: 8.5% vs. 40.5%, P < 0.001) but with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) scores >1 and more prevalent AF-related symptoms such as palpitations, fatigue, and weakness (all P < 0.001) as compared to the general AF patients. Atrial Fibrillation Ablation patients were significantly more often male, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (59.5% vs. 52.4%) and smaller left atrial size on echocardiogram (P < 0.001 each).ConclusionThe comparison of the patient cohorts in the AFA and AFG registries showed that AF ablation in European clinical practice is mostly performed in relatively young, symptomatic and relatively healthy patients.
|
|
| 12. |
- Trines, Serge A., et al.
(author)
-
Influence of risk factors in the ESC-EHRA EORP atrial fibrillation ablation long-term registry
- 2019
-
In: Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. - : Wiley. - 0147-8389 .- 1540-8159. ; 42:10, s. 1365-1373
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The influence of risk factors on atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation recurrence is increasingly recognized. We present a sub-analysis of the European Society of Cardiology-European Heart Rhythm Association-European Society of Cardiology AF ablation long-term registry on the effect of traditional risk factors for AF on postablation recurrence, reablation, and complications using real-world data.Methods: Risk factors for AF were defined as body mass index >= 27 kg/m(2), hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, alcohol >= 2 units/day, sleep apnea, smoking, no/occasional sports activity, moderate/severe mitral or aortic valve disease, any cardiomyopathy, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, coronary artery disease/infarction, and previous pacemaker/defibrillator implant. Patients were divided in two groups with >= 1 or without risk factors. Primary outcomes were arrhythmia recurrence after blanking period, reablation, and adverse events or death. Differences between the groups and the influence of individual risk factors were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression.Results: Three thousand sixty nine patients were included; 217 patients were without risk factors. Risk factor patients were older (58.4 vs 54.1 years), more often female (32% vs 19.8%) and had more often persistent AF (27.2% vs 23.5%). In a multivariate analysis, patients without risk factors had a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-0.99) for recurrence compared to risk factor patients. The multivariate hazard ratios for reablation or adverse events/death were not different between the two groups. Hypertension and body mass index were univariate predictors of recurrence.Conclusions: Patients with >= 1 risk factor had a 30% higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after ablation, but no differences in risk for repeat ablations and adverse events or death.
|
|
| 13. |
- Vassilikos, Vassilios P., et al.
(author)
-
Impact of centre volume on atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes in Europe : a report from the ESC EHRA EORP Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Long-Term (AFA LT) Registry
- 2021
-
In: Europace. - : Oxford University Press. - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 23:1, s. 49-58
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among European atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation centres related to the volume of AF ablations performed.METHODS AND RESULTS: Data for this analysis were extracted from the ESC EHRA EORP European AF Ablation Long-Term Study Registry. Based on 33rd and 67th percentiles of number of AF ablations performed, the participating centres were classified into high volume (HV) (≥ 180 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (<180 and ≥74/year), and low volume (LV) (<74/year). A total of 91 centres in 26 European countries enrolled in 3368 patients. There was a significantly higher reporting of cardiovascular complications and stroke incidence in LV centres compared with HV and MV (P = 0.039 and 0.008, respectively) and a lower success rate after AF ablation (55.3% in HV vs. 57.2% in LV vs. 67.4% in MV centres, P < 0.001), despite lower CHA2DS2-VASc score of patients, enrolled in LVs and less complex ablation techniques used. Adjustments of confounding factors (including type of AF ablation) led to elimination of these differences.CONCLUSION: Low-volume centres tended to present slightly higher cardiovascular complications' and stroke incidence and a lower unadjusted success rate after AF ablation, despite the fact that ablation procedures and patients were of lower risk compared with MV and HV centres. On the other hand, adjusted overall complication and recurrence rates were non-significantly different among different volume centres, a fact reflecting the heterogeneity of patient and procedural profiles, and a counterbalance between expertise and risk level among participating centres.
|
|
