Giczewska, Anna

Background: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. Results: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30–1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54–1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75–2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. Conclusions: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Background: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. Results: CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) ( P <0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P =0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62–1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51–1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51–0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40–0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). Conclusions: Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

BackgroundThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.HypothesisWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.MethodsUsing data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.ResultsIn ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00412984.