Key result
Periprocedural major complications during atrial fibrillation ablation were comparable between patients treated with NOACs and continuous phenprocoumon (2% vs. 2%; P=0.90).
Why the study?
Do NOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) reduce periprocedural major complications compared to continuous phenprocoumon in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Observational (n=444)
Do NOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) reduce periprocedural major complications compared to continuous phenprocoumon in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 2%
p-value: p=0.90
Periprocedural use of NOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) during atrial fibrillation ablation appears to have a similar major complication rate compared to continuous phenprocoumon.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support equivalent periprocedural safety of NOACs versus phenprocoumon in AF ablation; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Rillig et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation (n=444). Novel oral anticoagulants (Apixaban, Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban) vs. Continuous phenprocoumon was evaluated on Periprocedural major complications (p=0.90). Periprocedural major complications during atrial fibrillation ablation were comparable between patients treated with NOACs and continuous phenprocoumon (2% vs. 2%; P=0.90).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: