Identifying the prognostic significance of early arrhythmia recurrence during the blanking period and the optimal blanking period duration: insights from the DECAAF II study

Noujaim C, Lim C, Mekhael M, Feng H, Chouman N, Younes H, Assaf A, Shan B 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, 2023

688 participants · 25 citations

Abstract

Objective: Early atrial arrhythmia recurrence following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is common. Current guidelines promulgate a 3-month blanking period. We hypothesize that early atrial arrhythmia recurrence during the blanking period may predict longer-term ablation outcomes.

Methods and results: A total of 688 patients with persistent AF undergoing catheter ablation were included in the DECAAF II trial database. The primary endpoint of the study was the first confirmed recurrence of atrial arrhythmia. Recurrence was also monitored during the 90-day blanking period. A total of 287 patients experienced recurrent atrial arrhythmia during the blanking period, while 401 remained in sinus rhythm. Rates of longer-term arrhythmia recurrence were substantially higher among those who developed recurrence during the blanking period compared to those who remained in sinus rhythm throughout the blanking period (68% vs. 32%, P < 0.001). The study cohort was divided into three groups according to the timing of arrhythmia recurrence during the blanking period. Of those who had recurrent arrhythmia during the first month of the blanking period (Group 1), 43.9% experienced longer-term recurrence, compared to 61.6% who recurred during the second month of the blanking period (Group 2), and 93.3% of those who had arrhythmia recurrence during the third month (Group 3, P < 0.001). The risk of recurrent arrhythmia was highest in Group 3 (HR = 10.15), followed by Group 2 (HR = 2.35) and Group…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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: 688 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