Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024
Clinical Outcomes of Early Rhythm or Rate Control for New Onset Atrial Fibrillation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kim Jitae A, Najam Usman S, Ternes Caique M P, Marashly Qussay, Chelu Mihail G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is a common occurrence after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and portends a poorer prognosis. The optimal strategy for managing NOAF in this population is uncertain.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized deidentified patient data from the TriNetX Research Network. Patients with TAVR and NOAF were stratified into a rhythm control cohort if they were treated with antiarrhythmics, received AF ablation, or underwent cardioversion within 1 year of AF diagnosis. A rate control cohort was similarly defined by the absence of rhythm control strategies and treatment with a beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, or digoxin. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare outcomes at 7 years of follow-up.
RESULTS: We identified 569 patients in each cohort following propensity matching. At 7 years, the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and heart failure hospitalization was not significantly different between the rhythm and rate control cohorts (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83-1.18). The individual components of the primary outcome in addition to all-cause hospitalization were also similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes were seen among patients receiving an early rhythm or rate control strategy to manage NOAF after TAVR. The attenuated benefits of an early rhythm control strategy observed in this setting may be due to the overall high burden of comorbidities and advanced age of these patients.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized deidentified patient data from the TriNetX Research Network. Patients with TAVR and NOAF were stratified into a rhythm control cohort if they were treated with antiarrhythmics, received AF ablation, or underwent cardioversion within 1 year of AF diagnosis. A rate control cohort was similarly defined by the absence of rhythm control strategies and treatment with a beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, or digoxin. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare outcomes at 7 years of follow-up.
RESULTS: We identified 569 patients in each cohort following propensity matching. At 7 years, the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and heart failure hospitalization was not significantly different between the rhythm and rate control cohorts (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83-1.18). The individual components of the primary outcome in addition to all-cause hospitalization were also similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes were seen among patients receiving an early rhythm or rate control strategy to manage NOAF after TAVR. The attenuated benefits of an early rhythm control strategy observed in this setting may be due to the overall high burden of comorbidities and advanced age of these patients.