An uninterrupted DOACs strategy for CA of NVAF appears to be as safe as uninterrupted VKA without a significantly increased risk of minor or major bleeding events. There was a trend favouring DOACs in terms of major bleeding. Given their ease of use, fewer drug interactions and a similar security and effectiveness profile, DOACs should be considered first line therapy in patients undergoing CA for NVAF.
Introduction
Catheter ablation (CA) has been shown to be an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). The complication rates and outcomes among octogenarians remain poorly studied. We aimed to compare trends, morbidity, and mortality associated with CA for AF among octogenarians versus those less than 80 years old.
Methods
Using weighted sampling from the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of AF and a primary procedure of CA (2004‐2013). Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of major and minor complications.
Results
Among 86,119 patients who underwent CA for AF, 3,482 were 80 years old or older. Complications were significantly more frequent in octogenarians; [16.2% (564 of 3,482) versus 9.8% (8,092 of 82,637), P < 0.001]. Of note, there was no significant difference for the composite of major complications; [3.6% (124 of 3482) in octogenarians versus 2.8% (2286 of 82637), P = 0.20]. The total mortality rate was not significant in a multivariate regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35‐2.64; P = .94). The presence of chronic renal failure (OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.75‐6.36; P < 0.001), anemia (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03‐2.97; P = .04), and chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11‐2.62; P = .015) were predictors of major complications in octogenarians.
Conclusion
Catheter ablation for AF in octogenarians does not confer a higher mortality risk than in those less than 80 years old. The procedure is associated with a higher rate of overall complications but there was no difference in terms of major complications or death. The presence of anemia, CKD or pulmonary disease were predictors of major complications in octogenarians.
Aims: We sought to examine whether continuing oral anticoagulation (OAC) after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with improved outcomes. OAC reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with AF. However, the continuation of OAC following the blanking period of CA is controversial due to conflicting published data.Methods: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for studies comparing patients who were continued on OAC (ON-OAC) vs those in which OAC was discontinued (OFF-OAC). CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score had to be available for the classification of patients into high-or low-risk cohorts (CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥ 2 and ≤ 1, respectively). The primary efficacy outcome was thromboembolic events (TE). Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was the primary safety outcome.Results: Five studies comprising 3956 patients were included (mean age, 61.1 ± 2.9 years; 72.4% male, CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≤ 1 50.1%; CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥ 2 49.9%). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 11.7 months, OAC-continuation was associated with a significant decrease in risk of TE in the high-risk cohort (CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥ 2) (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.82, P = .01) with a RR reduction of 59%. ICH was significantly higher in the ON-OAC group (RR, 5.78; 95% CI, 1.33-25.08; P = .02). No significant benefit was observed in the low-risk cohort ON-OAC after the blanking period. Conclusion: Continuation of OAC after CA of AF with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥ 2 is associated with a significant decreased TE risk and a favorable net clinical benefit in Jorge Romero, MD and Roberto C. Cerrud-Rodriguez, MD contributed equally to this work. How to cite this article: Romero J, Cerrud-Rodriguez RC, Diaz JC, et al. Oral anticoagulation after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation and the associated risk of thromboembolic events and intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BackgroundThe pathologic process of ARVC (arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy) typically originates in the epicardium or subepicardial layers with progression toward endocardium. However, in the most recent ARVC international task force consensus statement, epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is recommended as a Class I indication only in patients with at least one failed endocardial VT ablation attempt.ObjectiveThe aim of this meta‐analysis is to assess the outcomes of ARVC patients undergoing combined endo‐epicardial VT ablation, as compared to endocardial ablation alone.MethodsA systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes of endo‐epicardial VT ablation vs endocardial‐only VT ablation in patients with ARVC. Fixed‐Effect model was used if I2 < 25 and the Random‐Effects Model was used if I2 ≥ 25%.ResultsNine studies consisting of 452 patients were included (mean age 42.3 ± 5.7 years; 70% male). After a mean follow‐up of 48.1 ± 21.5 months, endo‐epicardial ablation was associated with 42% relative risk reduction in VA recurrence as opposed to endocardial ablation alone (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45‐0.75; P < .0001). No significant differences were noted between endo‐epicardial and endocardial VT ablation groups in terms of all‐cause mortality (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.03‐47.08; P = .93) and acute procedural complications (RR, 5.39; 95% CI, 0.60‐48.74; P = .13).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that in patients with ARVC, endo‐epicardial VT ablation is associated with a significant reduction in VA recurrence as opposed to endocardial ablation alone, without a significant difference in all‐cause mortality or acute procedural complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.