Search

Background: The influence of risk factors on atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation recurrence is increasingly recognized. We present a sub-analysis of the European Society of Cardiology-European Heart Rhythm Association-European Society of Cardiology AF ablation long-term registry on the effect of traditional risk factors for AF on postablation recurrence, reablation, and complications using real-world data., Methods: Risk factors for AF were defined as body mass index ≥27 kg/m², hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, alcohol ≥2 units/day, sleep apnea, smoking, no/occasional sports activity, moderate/severe mitral or aortic valve disease, any cardiomyopathy, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, coronary artery disease/infarction, and previous pacemaker/defibrillator implant. Patients were divided in two groups with ≥1 or without risk factors. Primary outcomes were arrhythmia recurrence after blanking period, reablation, and adverse events or death. Differences between the groups and the influence of individual risk factors were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression., Results: Three thousand sixty nine patients were included; 217 patients were without risk factors. Risk factor patients were older (58.4 vs 54.1 years), more often female (32% vs 19.8%) and had more often persistent AF (27.2% vs 23.5%). In a multivariate analysis, patients without risk factors had a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-0.99) for recurrence compared to risk factor patients. The multivariate hazard ratios for reablation or adverse events/death were not different between the two groups. Hypertension and body mass index were univariate predictors of recurrence., Conclusions: Patients with ≥1 risk factor had a 30% higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after ablation, but no differences in risk for repeat ablations and adverse events or death., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines published in 2016 modified indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in comparison with the 2013 ESC Guidelines. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the stricter criteria suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines on patient outcome in a real-world population., Methods: We collected data on 930 consecutive patients with complete outcome information who had undergone CRT implantation from 2011 to 2013 from the CRT-MORE registry. Patients were classified according to 2013 (Reference) and 2016 (Current) ESC Guidelines. The primary end-point of the study was death from any cause and heart failure hospitalization., Results: According to the Reference Guidelines, 650 (69.9%) patients met Class I indications, 190 (20.4%) Class IIa, 39 (4.2%) Class IIb and 51 (5.5%) Class III. According to the Current Guidelines, 563 (60.5%) patients met Class I indications, 145 (15.6%) Class IIa, 108 (11.6%) Class IIb and 114 (12.3%) Class III. On comparing the Reference and Current Guidelines, the 538 patients who confirmed their Class I indication had a better outcome in terms of freedom from the combined end-point of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99; p = 0.0436) when compared to the 112 patients who lost their class I indication (84 moved to class IIb and 28 moved to class III)., Conclusions: The stricter criteria for Class I CRT indication suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines excluded about 20% of patients with a worse prognosis., Clinical Trial Registration: CRT MORE: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Modular Registry URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier:NCT01573091., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Professional guidelines are based on the best available evidence. However, patients treated in clinical practice may differ from those included in reference trials., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a large population of patients implanted with a CRT device stratified in accordance with the 2016 European heart failure (HF) guidelines., Methods: We collected data on 930 consecutive patients from the Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy MOdular REgistry. The primary end point was a composite of death and HF hospitalization., Results: Five hundred sixty-three (60.5%) patients met class I indications, 145 (15.6%) class IIa, 108 (11.6%) class IIb, and 114 (12.3%) class III. After a median follow-up of 1001 days, 120 (14.7%) patients who had an indication to CRT had died and 71 (8.7%) had been hospitalized for HF. The time to the end point was longer in patients with a class I indication (hazard ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.76; P = .0001). After 12 months, left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume had decreased by ≥15% in 61.5% (320/520) of patients whereas in 57.5% (389/676) of patients the absolute LV ejection fraction improvement was ≥5%. Adherence to class I was also associated with an absolute LV ejection fraction increase of >5% (P = .0142) and an LV end-systolic volume decrease of ≥15% (P = .0055)., Conclusion: In our population, ∼60% of patients underwent implantation according to the 2016 European HF guidelines class I indication. Adherence to class I was associated with a lower death and HF hospitalization rates and better LV reverse remodeling., (Copyright © 2018 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)