Prospective cohort shows increased physical activity lowers incidence of cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation patients with varying comorbidities, highlighting risk clustering implications.
Aims Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a heterogeneous condition with varying comorbidity profiles, yet current physical activity guidelines do not differentiate between AF phenotypes. We examined the association between objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across different AF phenotypes. Methods In a prospective cohort of 4858 adults with AF (mean age 63, 37 % female) from the UK Biobank, wrist-worn accelerometry quantified MVPA. Hierarchical clustering classified individuals into 'high' and 'low' risk clusters based on comorbidities. Activity patterns were also described by rhythm control treatment status. Cox-proportional hazards models assessed the association between MVPA and MACE across clusters, while Poisson regression identified notable MVPA thresholds. Results The 'high-risk' cluster (n = 2583) experienced more MACE (HR: 3.81, 95 %CI: 3.19–4.55, p < 0.001) than the 'low-risk' cluster (n = 2275). Greater MVPA was associated with lower MACE incidence in both clusters. In the 'low risk' cluster, those with median MVPA of 187 min/week had lower MACE incidence (HR 0.39, 95 %CI 0.22–0.70, p = 0.001) than the reference group (median 56 min/week). In the 'high risk' cluster, those with median MVPA of 167 min/week had lower MACE incidence (HR 0.57, 95 %CI 0.44–0.74, p < 0.001) than their reference group (median 42 min/week). Poisson models identified 35 and 103 min/week as notable thresholds (IRRs: 0.35 and 0.31, respectively; both p < 0.001). Among patients undergoing rhythm control (n = 1354), higher MVPA was associated with lower MACE incidence (HR 0.42, 95 %CI 0.26–0.66, p < 0.001). Conclusion In this AF cohort, higher MVPA was associated with lower MACE incidence across different risk phenotypes and treatment statuses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boidin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: