Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in the elderly >75 years old: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly performed worldwide. As comfort with AF ablation increases, the procedure is increasingly used in patients that are older and in those with more comorbidities. However, it is not well established whether AF ablation in the elderly, especially those >75 years old, has comparable safety and efficacy to younger populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety profiles in patients older than 75 years undergoing AF ablation with younger patients. METHODS: Databases from EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane, were searched from inception through September 2021. Studies that compared the success rates in AF catheter ablation and all complications rates between patients who were older vs under 75 years were included. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Twenty-seven observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 363,542 patients who underwent AF ablation. Comparing patients older than 75 years old to younger patients, there was no difference in the success of ablation rates between elderly and younger patients (pooled OR 0.85: 95% CI:0.69-1.05, p = .131). On the other hand, AF ablation in the elderly was associated with higher complication rates (pooled OR 1.42: 95% CI:1.21-1.68, p < .001). CONCLUSION: As AF ablation is expanded to elderly populations, our study found that AF ablation success rates were similar in both elderly and younger patients. However, older patients experience higher rates of complications that should be considered when offering the procedure and as a means to improve outcomes with future innovations.

Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation, and antiarrhythmic drugs as initial therapies for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation are first line treatments of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), however, there exists a paucity of data regarding the potential benefit of different catheter ablation technologies versus AADs as an early rhythm strategy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus AADs as a first line therapy of PAF. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and CENTRAL were searched to retrieve randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing cryoablation, RFA or AADs to one another as first line therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF). The primary outcome was overall freedom from arrhythmia recurrence (AF, atrial flutter [AFL], atrial tachycardia). Secondary outcomes included freedom from symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence, hospitalization, and serious adverse events. A random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 1212) met the inclusion criteria (605 AADs, 365 Cryoablation, and 245 RFA). Compared with AADs, overall recurrence was reduced with RFA (OR: 0.31; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.71) and cryoablation (OR: 0.39; 95% CrI: 0.16-1.00). Comparing ablation (cryoablation and RFA) with AADs in respect to freedom from symptomatic AF recurrence, neither cryoablation (OR: 0.35; 95% CrI: 0.06-1.96) nor RFA (OR: 0.34; 95% CrI: 0.07-1.27) resulted in statistically significant reductions individually compared to AADs, though pooled ablation with both technologies showed lower odds of arrhythmia recurrence (OR: 0.35; 95% CrI: 0.13-0.79). In terms of serious adverse events rates, neither cryoablation (OR: 0.77; 95% CrI: 0.44-1.39) nor RFA (OR: 1.45; 95% CrI: 0.67-3.23) were significantly different to AADs. RFA resulted in a statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations compared to AAD (OR: 0.08; 95% CrI: 0.01-0.99), whereas cryoablation did not (OR: 0.77; 95% CrI: 0.44-1.39). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed RFA to be the most effective treatment at reducing overall rates of recurrence, symptomatic recurrence and hospitalizations; whereas cryoablation was most likely to reduce serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation and RFA are both effective and safe first line therapies for AF compared to AADs, with RFA being the most effective at reducing recurrences.

Economics and outcomes of sotalol in-patient dosing approaches in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: There exists variability in the administration of in-patient sotalol therapy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The impact of this variability on patient in-hospital and 30-day posthospitalization costs and outcomes is not known. Also, the cost impact of intravenous sotalol, which can accelerate drug loading to therapeutic levels, is unknown. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three AF patients admitted for oral sotalol initiation at an Intermountain Healthcare Hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 were included. Patient and dosing characteristics were described descriptively and the impact of dosing schedule was correlated with daily hospital costs/clinical outcomes during the index hospitalization and for 30 days. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement for 3-day sotalol initiation is $9263.51. Projections of cost savings were made considering a 1-day load using intravenous sotalol that costs $2500.00 to administer. RESULTS: The average age was 70.3 ± 12.3 years and 60.2% were male with comorbidities of hypertension (83%), diabetes (36%), and coronary artery disease (53%). The mean ejection fraction was 59.9 ± 7.8% and the median corrected QT interval was 453.7 ± 37.6 ms before sotalol dosing. No ventricular arrhythmias developed, but bradycardia (<60 bpm) was observed in 37.6% of patients. The average length of stay was 3.9 ± 4.6 (median: 2.2) days. Postdischarge outcomes and rehospitalization rates stratified by length of stay were similar. The cost per day was estimated at $2931.55 (1. $2931.55, 2. $5863.10, 3. $8794.65, 4. $11 726.20). CONCLUSIONS: In-patient oral sotalol dosing is markedly variable and results in the potential of both cost gain and loss to a hospital. In consideration of estimated costs, there is the potential for $871.55 cost savings compared to a 2-day oral load and $3803.10 compared to a 3-day oral load.

Incidence of thromboembolic events following atrial fibrillation catheter ablation and rate control strategies according to the kind of oral anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulantion therapy (OAT) represents the cornerstone to reduce thromboembolic events for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent studies suggest that AF catheter ablation on top of OAT may be useful to further reduce the thromboembolic risk in AF patients. The aim of the present study is to compare the long-term risk of thromboembolic events and treatment-related complications in patients with AF treated by OAT strategies and catheter ablation. METHODS: Pubmed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were searched for studies including >500 patients evaluating AF patients treated with OAT (VKA: vitamin K antagonist or DOAC: Direct oral anticoagulants) and/or AF ablation. Pooled incidence of stroke/year was the primary end point, while that of stroke, of all cause bleeding and of major bleeding the secondary ones. All the analyses were stratified according to the CHADS2 score of included patients. RESULTS: Overall, 27 studies were selected, including 50,973 patients in the AF catheter ablation group; 281,595 patients in the VKA group; 54,811 patients in the DOAC group. After a mean follow-up of 2.4 (1.5-3.8) years, the overall incidence of stroke and thromboembolic events was 0.63 per 100 patients/year in AF ablation group, 2.09 per 100 patients/year in VKA group and 1.24 per 100 patients/year in DOAC group (p < 0.001). After stratification in 4 groups according to CHADS2 score, the incidence of thromboembolic events remained lower in patients included in the AF ablation, followed by DOAC and VKA respectively (p < 0.001), for each CHADS2 cluster. Both the incidence of all cause bleedings and major bleedings resulted lower in AF ablation group (p < 0.001). The incidence of all-cause mortality in the AF ablation group was significant lower than in the group of OAT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: AF catheter ablation significantly reduces the incidence of long-term thromboembolic events compared to both VKA and DOAC. This reduction is maintained in all CHADS2 score clusters and is strengthened by the concomitant reduction in hemorrhagic complications provided by AF ablation.