RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about very early atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation after first AF detection. METHODS: We evaluated patients with AF ablation <4 months from newly diagnosed paroxysmal AF (NEWPaAF) and newly diagnosed persistent AF (NEWPeAF). We compared the two patient populations and compared ablation outcomes to those undergoing later ablation. RESULTS: Ablation was done <4 months from AF diagnosis in 353 patients (135 = paroxysmal, 218 = persistent). Early ablation outcome was best for NEWPaAF versus NEWPeAF for initial (p = 0.030) but not final (p = 0.102) ablation. Despite recent AF diagnosis in both groups, they were clinically quite different. NEWPaAF patients were younger (64.3 ± 13.0 vs. 67.3 ± 10.9, p = 0.0020), failed fewer drugs (0.39 vs. 0.60, p = 0.007), had smaller LA size (4.12 ± 0.58 vs. 4.48 ± 0.59 cm, p < 0.0001), lower BMI (28.8 ± 5.0 vs. 30.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.016), and less CAD (3.7% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.007), cardiomyopathies (2.2% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.0001), hypertension (46.7% vs. 67.4%, p < 0.0001), diabetes (8.1% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.011) and sleep apnea (20.0% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.031). For NEWPaAF, early ablation AF-free outcome was no better than later ablation (p = 0.314). For NEWPeAF, AF-free outcomes were better for early ablation than later ablation (p < 0.0001). Delaying ablation allowed more strokes/TIAs in both AF types (paroxysmal p = 0.014, persistent p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting for early ablation after newly diagnosed persistent AF have more pre-existing comorbidities and worse initial ablation outcomes than patients with NEWPaAF. For NEWPaAF, there was no advantage to early ablation, as long as the AF remained paroxysmal. For NEWPeAF, early ablation gave better outcomes than later ablation and they should undergo early ablation. For both AF types, waiting was associated with more neurologic events, suggesting all patients should consider earlier ablation.