Black‐Maier, Eric

Background: The optimal timing of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in reference to the time of diagnosis is unknown. We sought to assess the impact of the duration between first diagnosis of AF and ablation, or diagnosis-to-ablation time (DAT), on AF recurrence following catheter ablation. Methods: We conducted a systematic electronic search for observational studies reporting the outcomes associated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation stratified by diagnosis-to-ablation time. The primary meta-analysis using a random effects model assessed AF recurrence stratified by DAT ≤1 year versus >1 year. A secondary analysis assessed outcomes stratified by DAT ≤3 years versus >3 years. Results: Of the 632 screened studies, 6 studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 4950 participants undergoing AF ablation for symptomatic AF. A shorter DAT ≤1 year was associated with a lower relative risk of AF recurrence compared with DAT >1 year (relative risk, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65–0.82]; P <0.001). Heterogeneity was moderate (I 2 =51%). When excluding the one study consisting of only patients with persistent AF, the heterogeneity improved substantially (I 2 =0%, Cochran’s Q P =0.55) with a similar estimate of effect (relative risk, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.71–0.85]; P <0.001). Conclusions: Shorter duration between time of first AF diagnosis and AF ablation is associated with an increased likelihood of ablation procedural success. Additional study is required to confirm these results and to explore implementation of earlier catheter AF ablation and patient outcomes within the current AF care pathway. Visual Overview A visual overview is available for this article.

BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.HypothesisAnticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.MethodsUsing the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status.ResultsAmong 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow‐up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24–36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65–77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70–82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7–99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0–91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n = 183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n = 39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty‐day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent.ConclusionsManagement of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin‐ and NOAC‐treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC‐treated patients.