Heart rhythm · 2025
Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: Insights from the NCDR atrial fibrillation ablation registry.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yousuf Omair, Akar Joseph, Tan Zhen, Alkalbani Mutaz, Tasneem Hameeda, Steinberg Benjamin A, Hsu Jonathan C, Atwater Brett, Yang Eunice, Spertus John, Calkins Hugh, Freeman James V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a widely used treatment strategy in patients with and without heart failure (HF).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient characteristics, ablation strategies, and complications of CA for AF by HF status.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CA between 2016 and 2022 from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients were grouped by: HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), and no HF. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess complication risk.
RESULTS: Among 75,527 patients, 51,285 had no HF, 13,625 had HFrEF, and 10,617 had HFpEF. HF groups had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary disease. Patients with HFrEF received more adjunctive ablation than patients HFpEF or no HF, including linear (32%, 29.3%, and 23.4%, respectively) and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (33.1%, 30.2%, and 30.1%, respectively) (P < .0001). Complication rates were higher in HFrEF (4%) and HFpEF (3.8%) vs no HF (2%), with adjusted odds ratios (HFrEF: OR, 1.80; P < .0001; HFpEF: OR, 1.42; P < .0001). Complication rates declined from 2016 to 2022 across all groups (HFrEF: 5.2% to 2.9%, P = .0002; HFpEF: 5.9% to 3.0%, P < .0001; no HF: 2.8% to 1.6%, P < .0001). Ablation volume increased from 2018 to 2022 by 138% (HFrEF), 191% (HFpEF), and 113% (no HF).
CONCLUSION: Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF have more comorbidities, undergo more adjunctive ablation, and experience higher complication rates. Despite this, ablation volumes rose and complications declined across all groups over time.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient characteristics, ablation strategies, and complications of CA for AF by HF status.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CA between 2016 and 2022 from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients were grouped by: HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), and no HF. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess complication risk.
RESULTS: Among 75,527 patients, 51,285 had no HF, 13,625 had HFrEF, and 10,617 had HFpEF. HF groups had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary disease. Patients with HFrEF received more adjunctive ablation than patients HFpEF or no HF, including linear (32%, 29.3%, and 23.4%, respectively) and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (33.1%, 30.2%, and 30.1%, respectively) (P < .0001). Complication rates were higher in HFrEF (4%) and HFpEF (3.8%) vs no HF (2%), with adjusted odds ratios (HFrEF: OR, 1.80; P < .0001; HFpEF: OR, 1.42; P < .0001). Complication rates declined from 2016 to 2022 across all groups (HFrEF: 5.2% to 2.9%, P = .0002; HFpEF: 5.9% to 3.0%, P < .0001; no HF: 2.8% to 1.6%, P < .0001). Ablation volume increased from 2018 to 2022 by 138% (HFrEF), 191% (HFpEF), and 113% (no HF).
CONCLUSION: Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF have more comorbidities, undergo more adjunctive ablation, and experience higher complication rates. Despite this, ablation volumes rose and complications declined across all groups over time.