ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains common. We evaluated the association between recurrence and levels of biomarkers of cardiac remodeling, and their ability to improve recurrence prediction when added to a clinical prediction model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples collected before de novo catheter ablation were analyzed. Levels of bone morphogenetic protein-10, angiopoietin-2, fibroblast growth factor-23, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7, myosin-binding protein C3, growth differentiation factor-15, interleukin-6, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and high-sensitivity troponin T were measured. Recurrence was defined as ≥30 seconds of an atrial arrhythmia 3 to 12 months postablation. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using biomarker levels along with clinical covariates: APPLE score (Age >65 years, Persistent AF, imPaired eGFR [<60 ml/min/1.73m2], LA diameter ≥43 mm, EF <50%; which includes age, left atrial diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, persistent atrial fibrillation, and estimated glomerular filtration rate), preablation rhythm, sex, height, body mass index, presence of an implanted continuous monitor, year of ablation, and additional linear ablation. A total of 1873 participants were included. A multivariable logistic regression showed an association between recurrence and levels of angiopoietin-2 (odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.02-1.15], P=0.007) and interleukin-6 (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.003-1.03]; P=0.02). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of a model that only contained clinical predictors was 0.711. The addition of any of the 9 studied biomarkers to the predictive model did not result in a statistically significant improvement in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. CONCLUSIONS: Higher angiopoietin-2 and interleukin-6 levels were associated with recurrence after atrial fibrillation ablation in multivariable modeling. However, the addition of biomarkers to a clinical prediction model did not significantly improve recurrence prediction.
