Heart rhythm · 2024
Prognosis of patients in end-stage heart failure with atrial fibrillation treated with ablation: Insights from CASTLE-HTx.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Moersdorf Maximilian, Tijssen Jan G P, Marrouche Nassir F, Crijns Harry J G M, Costard-Jaeckle Angelika, Bergau Leonard, Hindricks Gerhard, Dagres Nikolaos, Sossalla Samuel, Schramm Rene, Fox Henrik, Fink Thomas, El Hamriti Mustapha, Sciacca Vanessa, Konietschke Frank, Rudolph Volker, Gummert Jan, Sommer Philipp, Sohns Christian, CASTLE HTx Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The CASTLE-HTx trial demonstrated the benefit of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation compared with medical therapy in decreasing mortality, need for left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (HTx) in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF).
OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to identify risk factors related to adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage HF and to assess the impact of ablation.
METHODS: The CASTLE-HTx protocol randomized 194 patients with end-stage HF and AF to ablation vs medical therapy. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association class ≥III, and AF burden >50% as predictors for the primary end point. The CASTLE-HTx risk score assigned weights to these risk factors. Patients with a risk score ≥3 were identified as high risk.
RESULTS: The patients were assigned to low-risk (89 [45.9%]) and high-risk (105 [54.1%]) groups. After a median follow-up of 18 months, a primary end point event occurred in 6 and 31 patients of the low- and high-risk groups (hazard ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-11.9). The incidence rate (IR) difference between ablation and medical therapy was much larger in high-risk patients (8/49 [IR, 11.4] vs 23/56 [IR, 36.1]) compared with low-risk patients (2/48 [IR, 2.6] vs 4/41 [IR, 6.3]). The IR difference for ablation was significantly higher in high-risk patients (24.69) compared with low-risk patients (3.70).
CONCLUSION: The absolute benefit of ablation is more pronounced in high-risk patients, but low-risk patients may also benefit. The CASTLE-HTx risk score identifies patients with end-stage HF who will particularly benefit from ablation.
OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to identify risk factors related to adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage HF and to assess the impact of ablation.
METHODS: The CASTLE-HTx protocol randomized 194 patients with end-stage HF and AF to ablation vs medical therapy. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association class ≥III, and AF burden >50% as predictors for the primary end point. The CASTLE-HTx risk score assigned weights to these risk factors. Patients with a risk score ≥3 were identified as high risk.
RESULTS: The patients were assigned to low-risk (89 [45.9%]) and high-risk (105 [54.1%]) groups. After a median follow-up of 18 months, a primary end point event occurred in 6 and 31 patients of the low- and high-risk groups (hazard ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-11.9). The incidence rate (IR) difference between ablation and medical therapy was much larger in high-risk patients (8/49 [IR, 11.4] vs 23/56 [IR, 36.1]) compared with low-risk patients (2/48 [IR, 2.6] vs 4/41 [IR, 6.3]). The IR difference for ablation was significantly higher in high-risk patients (24.69) compared with low-risk patients (3.70).
CONCLUSION: The absolute benefit of ablation is more pronounced in high-risk patients, but low-risk patients may also benefit. The CASTLE-HTx risk score identifies patients with end-stage HF who will particularly benefit from ablation.