Comprehensive atrial fibrillation burden and symptom reduction post-ablation: insights from DECAAF II

Noujaim C, Assaf A, Lim C, Feng H, Younes H, Mekhael M, Chouman N, Shamaileh G et al.

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2024

69 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Aims: Traditional atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after catheter ablation is reported as a binary outcome. However, a paradigm shift towards a more granular definition, considering arrhythmic or symptomatic burden, is emerging. We hypothesize that ablation reduces AF burden independently of conventional recurrence status in patients with persistent AF, correlating with symptom burden reduction.

Methods and results: Ninety-eight patients with persistent AF from the DECAAF II trial with pre-ablation follow-up were included. Patients recorded daily single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) strips, defining AF burden as the proportion of AF days among total submitted ECG days. The primary outcome was atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The AF severity scale was administered pre-ablation and at 12 months post-ablation. At follow-up, 69 patients had atrial arrhythmia recurrence and 29 remained in sinus rhythm. These patients were categorized into a recurrence (n = 69) and a no-recurrence group (n = 29). Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, but recurrence patients were older (P = 0.005), had a higher prevalence of hyperlipidaemia (P = 0.007), and had a larger left atrial (LA) volume (P = 0.01). There was a reduction in AF burden in the recurrence group when compared with their pre-ablation burden (65 vs. 15%, P < 0.0001). Utah Stage 4 fibrosis and diabetes predicted less improvement in AF burden. The symptom severity score at 12 months post-ablation was significantly reduced…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 69 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

• DOI
• PubMed
• Free full text
• Publisher page

Related studies

• Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe Crop Protection, 2019
• Alarming situation of emerging H5 and H7 avian influenza and effective control strategies Emerging Microbes and Infections, 2022
• Livestock and food security: vulnerability to population growth and climate change Global Change Biology, 2014
• Atmosphere–ocean oxygen and productivity dynamics during early animal radiations Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019
• Characterization of the global distribution and diversified plasmid reservoirs of the colistin resistance gene mcr-9 Scientific Reports, 2020
• The global seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in pigs: A systematic review and meta-analysis Veterinary parasitology, 2019

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