Key result
Integrated lifestyle intervention improves post-ablation AF quality-of-life scores by ~8 points over usual care.
Why the study?
The impact of integrated lifestyle intervention on quality of life and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing AF ablation compared with usual care was unclear.
Does an integrated lifestyle intervention improve quality of life and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing their first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=145)
Randomized
Does an integrated lifestyle intervention improve quality of life and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing their first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 88.9% vs 80.6%
p-value: p=0.026
An integrated lifestyle intervention prior to AF ablation accelerates quality of life improvements and reduces healthcare costs, making it a cost-effective addition to usual care.
Lifestyle intervention boosts quality-of-life gains after AF ablation; extends evidence for integrated risk-factor management in ablation patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an integrated lifestyle intervention on quality of life and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), compared with usual care. METHODS: The POP-AF trial randomized patients for their first AF ablation who had at least one modifiable lifestyle-related risk factor between lifestyle intervention and usual care. Quality of life was assessed throughout the trial using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) questionnaire. Treatment burden was evaluated using the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ). Health state was assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from health states over time and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: A total of 145 patients participated (74% male; median age 62 years). At 3 months post-ablation, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in AFEQT (p<0.001), with higher scores in the intervention group (88.9 vs 80.6; p=0.026). At 12 months, this difference diminished due to continued improvement in the control group. Throughout the study, TBQ, EQ-5D and QALYs did not differ significantly between groups. The lifestyle intervention was associated with lower costs at the expense of a small reduction in QALYs, resulting in an ICER of €16,589 saved per QALY lost. CONCLUSIONS: Both lifestyle intervention and usual care were associated with marked improvements in AF-specific quality of life following ablation. The lifestyle intervention reduced healthcare costs with minimal impact on health outcomes, supporting structured lifestyle modification as a cost-effective addition to pre-ablation AF care. Trial registration number: NCT05148338.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vermeer et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=145). Integrated lifestyle intervention vs. Usual care was evaluated on Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) score at 3 months post-ablation (p=0.026). An integrated lifestyle intervention significantly improved Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life scores at 3 months post-ablation compared to usual care (88.9 vs 80.6; P=0.026).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: