MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/openhrt-2025-003733

Медицинская библиотека · Open heart · 2025

Withdrawing guideline-directed medical therapy after left ventricular ejection fraction recovery following atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicentre cohort study.

Al-Aidarous Sayed, Rajappan Saffron, Ahluwalia Nikhil, Uy Christopher P, Abdelgawad Hatem, Vidal Horrach Caterina, Kouadria Sofiane, Hua Zhen, Sandhar Gurkiran, Cooke Theo, Rasheed Salman, Geran Suria, Chiew Kayla Li Xian, Lehri Meher, Palaiologos Dimitrios, Khalil Arsalan, Kennedy Brett, Balasubramaniam Richard, Hussain Shahana, Stanton Lauren, Ahsan Syed, Primus Christopher, Chow Anthony W C, Thomas Martin, Muthumala Amal, Sohaib Syed M A, Ang Richard, Papageorgiou Nikolaos, Butcher Charles, Rajappan Kim, Roney Caroline, Hunter Ross J, Honarbakhsh Shohreh

СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF)-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is characterised by reversible left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). The need for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure after LV ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery in AIC after catheter ablation (CA) is unclear.

METHODS

This multicentre cohort study across 12 UK centres included adults undergoing index AF ablation (June 2019-June 2024) with LVEF <50% preablation and recovery to ≥50% at three timepoints: preablation; early postablation (≥4 weeks) and late postablation (≥3 months or ≥3 months post-GDMT withdrawal). Patients were stratified post recovery of LVEF after CA. The primary outcome was mean LVEF at late follow-up; secondary outcomes included absolute change in LVEF, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and SR maintenance.

RESULTS

88 patients met inclusion enrolment criteria (61.7±10.6 years old; 91% male), of which 50 (56.8%) continued full-dose GDMT and 38 (43.2%) withdrew ≥50% of GDMT. In the GDMT-withdrawn group, mean GDMT classes decreased from 2.97±0.88 to 1.03±0.79 (p<0.001). At late follow-up, mean LVEF was comparable (56.3%±3.8% GDMT-continued vs 56.8%±5.5% GDMT-withdrawn; p=0.59), as was LVEF change (1.2% vs 0.4%; p=0.48). One relapse occurred in each group secondary to an acute coronary syndrome (2.0% vs 2.6%; p=1). LVEDD remained stable (p>0.8). SR was maintained in 82.0% vs 92.1% of patients; p=0.17.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective GDMT withdrawal after sustained LVEF recovery and rhythm control did not compromise LV systolic function, remodelling or rhythm maintenance. This supports the study of personalised de-escalation strategies in AIC in prospective trials.

Для цитирования: Al-Aidarous Sayed, Rajappan Saffron, Ahluwalia Nikhil, Uy Christopher P, Abdelgawad Hatem, Vidal Horrach Caterina, Kouadria Sofiane, Hua Zhen, Sandhar Gurkiran, Cooke Theo, Rasheed Salman, Geran Suria, Chiew Kayla Li Xian, Lehri Meher, Palaiologos Dimitrios, Khalil Arsalan, Kennedy Brett, Balasubramaniam Richard, Hussain Shahana, Stanton Lauren, Ahsan Syed, Primus Christopher, Chow Anthony W C, Thomas Martin, Muthumala Amal, Sohaib Syed M A, Ang Richard, Papageorgiou Nikolaos, Butcher Charles, Rajappan Kim, Roney Caroline, Hunter Ross J, Honarbakhsh Shohreh. Withdrawing guideline-directed medical therapy after left ventricular ejection fraction recovery following atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicentre cohort study.. Open heart. 2025. DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2025-003733.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.