Key result
AF ablation shows similar arrhythmia-free survival and complication rates in older versus younger patients.
Why the study?
Although atrial fibrillation prevalence increases with age, the prognosis and safety profile of index and repeat ablation procedures remain unclear in older patients.
Does catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation have similar efficacy and safety in older patients (≥70 years) compared to younger patients (<70 years)?
Cohort (n=258)
Yes
Does catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation have similar efficacy and safety in older patients (≥70 years) compared to younger patients (<70 years)?
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in older patients (≥70 years) demonstrates similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to younger patients, suggesting age alone should not preclude ablation.
Supports considering ablation in older AF patients; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Catheter ablation is a well-established rhythm control therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF). Although the prevalence of AF increases dramatically with age, the prognosis and safety profile of index and repeat ablation procedures remain unclear in the older population. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess the arrhythmia recurrence, reablation and complication rates in older patients. Secondary endpoints were the identification of independent predictors of arrhythmia recurrence and reablation, including information on pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection and other atrial foci. Older (n=129, ≥70 years) and younger (n=129, <70 years) patients were compared using a propensity-score matching analysis based on age, gender, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, dilated left atrium, severe obstructive sleep apnea, cardiac disease, left systolic ventricular function, AF pattern and ablation technique. Arrhythmia recurrence and reablation were evaluated in both groups using a Cox regression analysis in order to identify predictors. During a 30-month follow-up period, there were no significant differences between older and younger patients in the arrhythmia-free survival (65.1% and 59.7%; log-rank test p=0.403) and complication (10.1% and 10.9%; p>0.999) rates after the index ablation. However, the reablation rate was significantly different (46.7% and 69.2%; p<0.05, respectively). In those patients who underwent reablation procedure (redo subgroups), there were no differences in the incidence of PV reconnection (38.1% redo-older and 27.8% redo-younger patients; p=0.556). However, the redo-older patients had lower reconnected PVs per patient (p<0.01) and lower atrial foci (2.3 and 3.7; p<0.01) than the redo-younger patients. A further important finding was that age was not an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence or reablation. Our data reveal that the AF index ablation in older patients had a similar efficacy and safety profile to younger patients. Therefore, age alone must not be considered a prognostic factor for AF ablation but the presence of limiting factors such as frailty and multiple comorbidities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Molina-Ramos et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=258). Catheter ablation (older patients ≥70 years) vs. Catheter ablation (younger patients <70 years) was evaluated on Arrhythmia-free survival (p=0.403). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in older patients (≥70 years) resulted in similar 30-month arrhythmia-free survival (65.1% vs 59.7%) and complication rates compared to younger patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: