Evidence Hub

Impact of sinus rhythm maintenance on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from AF frontier ablation registry

K. Usuda, Takeshi Kato, T. Tsuda, H. Tada, S. Niwa, S. Usui, K. Sakata, K. Hayashi et al.

Heart and Vessels, 2021

3,326 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

The impact of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiovascular events and mortality is controversial. We investigated the impact of sinus rhythm maintenance on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after AF ablation from a Japanese multicenter cohort of AF ablation. We investigated 3326 consecutive patients (25.8% female, mean age 63.3 ± 10.3 years) who underwent catheter ablation for AF from the atrial fibrillation registry to follow the long-term outcomes and use of anti coagulants after ablation (AF frontier ablation registry). The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiovascular events, and all-cause death. During a mean follow-up of 24.0 months, 2339 (70.3%) patients were free from AF after catheter ablation, and the primary composite endpoint occurred in 144 (4.3%) patients. The AF nonrecurrence group had a significantly lower incidence of the primary endpoint (1.8 per 100 person-years) compared with the AF recurrence group (3.0 per 100 person-years, p = 0.003). The multivariate analysis revealed that freedom from AF (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44–0.86, p = 0.005) was independently associated with the incidence of the composite event. In the multicenter cohort of AF ablation, sinus rhythm maintenance after catheter ablation was independently associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,326 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free