Key result
Cryoballoon ablation in patients ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation showed similar 1-year freedom from AF compared to younger patients (80.6% vs 85.8%; HR 0.868, 95% CI 0.509-1.481; P=0.6046).
Why the study?
The efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation had not yet been tested in the Chinese elderly population.
Does cryoballoon ablation have comparable efficacy and safety in patients ≥75 years old compared to patients <75 years old with drug-resistant atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=677)
Does cryoballoon ablation have comparable efficacy and safety in patients ≥75 years old compared to patients <75 years old with drug-resistant atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.868 (95% CI 0.509–1.481)
Absolute Event Rate: 80.6% vs 85.8%
p-value: p=.6046
Cryoballoon ablation is a safe and effective treatment for drug-resistant atrial fibrillation in Chinese patients aged 75 years and older, with efficacy and safety profiles comparable to those in younger patients.
May support cryoballoon ablation in elderly AF; hypothesis-generating, leaves open randomized confirmation.
INTRODUCTION: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) results in satisfactory outcomes for drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. However, the efficacy and safety of CBA have not yet been tested in the Chinese elderly population. Therefore, this study compared the recurrence of AF and complications of CBA in patients ≥75 years and <75 years. METHODS: A total of 677 patients (<75 years, n = 550; ≥ 75 years, n = 127) with paroxysmal (n = 603) or persistent (n = 74) non-valvular drug-resistant AF were included. The efficacy was assessed by the recurrence of AF, and the safety was evaluated by peri- and post-procedural complications. RESULTS: The CHA2DS2-VASc (2.6 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.6, P < .01) and HAS-BLED (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.0 ± 0.8, P = .01) scores were significantly higher in the elderly group. The instant pulmonary vein isolation success rate was comparable (99.11% younger vs 98.98% older, P = .99). After a mean follow-up time of 12.8 ± 9.6 months, the 1-year freedom from AF rate was 80.6% vs 85.8% in the older and younger groups, respectively, while the survival analysis showed a nonsignificant difference in the rate of freedom from AF (log-rank P = .46). Cox regression showed that age was not a predictive factor for AF recurrence and was not dichotomized (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.868, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.509-1.481; P = .6046) or continuous (HR = 0.990, 95% CI, 0.968-1.012, P = .3642). Similar complications rates were observed, including stroke (1.0% younger vs 0.93% older, P = .95) and major hemorrhagic events (1.2% younger vs 0% elder, P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety profiles of CBA in patients older than 75 years are comparable with those in younger patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in paroxysmal or persistent non-valvular drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (n=677). Age ≥75 years undergoing cryoballoon ablation vs. Age <75 years undergoing cryoballoon ablation was evaluated on 1-year freedom from AF (HR 0.868, 95% CI 0.509-1.481, p=.6046). Cryoballoon ablation in patients ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation showed similar 1-year freedom from AF compared to younger patients (80.6% vs 85.8%; HR 0.868, 95% CI 0.509-1.481; P=0.6046).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: