Research ExplorerPublicationsSafety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versu...

Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry

Standard

Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry. / Kany, Shinwan; Brachmann, Johannes; Lewalter, Thorsten; Kuck, Karl-Heinz; Andresen, Dietrich; Willems, Stephan; Hoffmann, Ellen; Eckardt, Lars; Thomas, Dierk; Hochadel, Matthias; Senges, Jochen; Metzner, Andreas; Rillig, Andreas.

In: CLIN RES CARDIOL, Vol. 110, No. 6, 06.2021, p. 841-850.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Kany, S, Brachmann, J, Lewalter, T, Kuck, K-H, Andresen, D, Willems, S, Hoffmann, E, Eckardt, L, Thomas, D, Hochadel, M, Senges, J, Metzner, A & Rillig, A 2021, 'Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry', CLIN RES CARDIOL, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 841-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1

APA

Kany, S., Brachmann, J., Lewalter, T., Kuck, K-H., Andresen, D., Willems, S., Hoffmann, E., Eckardt, L., Thomas, D., Hochadel, M., Senges, J., Metzner, A., & Rillig, A. (2021). Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry. CLIN RES CARDIOL, 110(6), 841-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1

Vancouver

Kany S, Brachmann J, Lewalter T, Kuck K-H, Andresen D, Willems S et al. Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry. CLIN RES CARDIOL. 2021 Jun;110(6):841-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1

Bibtex

@article{0e58f8c233eb4a7487d0c9fccb1b5a39,
title = "Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation is an established strategy for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in a significant number of patients, a repeat procedure is mandatory due to arrhythmia recurrence. In this study, we report safety data and procedural details of patients undergoing index ablation versus repeat ablation in a registry-based real-life setting.METHODS: Patients from the German Ablation Registry, a prospective, multicentre registry of patients undergoing ablation between January 2007 and January 2010 were included.RESULTS: A total of 4155 patients were enrolled in the study. Group I (index ablation) consisted of 3377/4155 (82.1%) and group II (repeat ablation) of 738/4155 (17.9%). Patients in group I had a significantly higher ratio of paroxysmal AF (69.3% vs 61.9%, p < 0.001) and significantly less persistent AF (30.7% vs 38.1%, p < 0.001). The repeat group showed significantly lower mean RF application duration (2580 s. vs 1960, p < 0.001), less fluoroscopy time (29 min. vs. 27 min., p < 0.001), less mean dose area product (DAP) (3744 cGy × cm2 vs 3325 cGy × cm2, p = 0.001), and shorter study duration (181.2 min. vs 163.6 min., p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the groups was found in terms of mortality (0.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.39), MACE (0.4% vs 0.3%, p = 0.58), MACCE (0.8% vs 0.6%, p = 0.47), composite safety endpoint (1.5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.76), and arrhythmia recurrence (43.8% vs 41.9%, p = 0.37) during 1-year follow-up. Both groups reported to have improved or no symptoms (80.4% vs 77.8%, p = 0.13).CONCLUSION: Repeat catheter ablation is safe and provides a symptomatic relief comparable to index ablation. Repeat procedures are significantly shorter and use less fluoroscopy.",
author = "Shinwan Kany and Johannes Brachmann and Thorsten Lewalter and Karl-Heinz Kuck and Dietrich Andresen and Stephan Willems and Ellen Hoffmann and Lars Eckardt and Dierk Thomas and Matthias Hochadel and Jochen Senges and Andreas Metzner and Andreas Rillig",
year = "2021",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "841--850",
journal = "CLIN RES CARDIOL",
issn = "1861-0684",
publisher = "D. Steinkopff-Verlag",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry

AU - Kany, Shinwan

AU - Brachmann, Johannes

AU - Lewalter, Thorsten

AU - Kuck, Karl-Heinz

AU - Andresen, Dietrich

AU - Willems, Stephan

AU - Hoffmann, Ellen

AU - Eckardt, Lars

AU - Thomas, Dierk

AU - Hochadel, Matthias

AU - Senges, Jochen

AU - Metzner, Andreas

AU - Rillig, Andreas

PY - 2021/6

Y1 - 2021/6

N2 - BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation is an established strategy for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in a significant number of patients, a repeat procedure is mandatory due to arrhythmia recurrence. In this study, we report safety data and procedural details of patients undergoing index ablation versus repeat ablation in a registry-based real-life setting.METHODS: Patients from the German Ablation Registry, a prospective, multicentre registry of patients undergoing ablation between January 2007 and January 2010 were included.RESULTS: A total of 4155 patients were enrolled in the study. Group I (index ablation) consisted of 3377/4155 (82.1%) and group II (repeat ablation) of 738/4155 (17.9%). Patients in group I had a significantly higher ratio of paroxysmal AF (69.3% vs 61.9%, p < 0.001) and significantly less persistent AF (30.7% vs 38.1%, p < 0.001). The repeat group showed significantly lower mean RF application duration (2580 s. vs 1960, p < 0.001), less fluoroscopy time (29 min. vs. 27 min., p < 0.001), less mean dose area product (DAP) (3744 cGy × cm2 vs 3325 cGy × cm2, p = 0.001), and shorter study duration (181.2 min. vs 163.6 min., p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the groups was found in terms of mortality (0.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.39), MACE (0.4% vs 0.3%, p = 0.58), MACCE (0.8% vs 0.6%, p = 0.47), composite safety endpoint (1.5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.76), and arrhythmia recurrence (43.8% vs 41.9%, p = 0.37) during 1-year follow-up. Both groups reported to have improved or no symptoms (80.4% vs 77.8%, p = 0.13).CONCLUSION: Repeat catheter ablation is safe and provides a symptomatic relief comparable to index ablation. Repeat procedures are significantly shorter and use less fluoroscopy.

AB - BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation is an established strategy for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in a significant number of patients, a repeat procedure is mandatory due to arrhythmia recurrence. In this study, we report safety data and procedural details of patients undergoing index ablation versus repeat ablation in a registry-based real-life setting.METHODS: Patients from the German Ablation Registry, a prospective, multicentre registry of patients undergoing ablation between January 2007 and January 2010 were included.RESULTS: A total of 4155 patients were enrolled in the study. Group I (index ablation) consisted of 3377/4155 (82.1%) and group II (repeat ablation) of 738/4155 (17.9%). Patients in group I had a significantly higher ratio of paroxysmal AF (69.3% vs 61.9%, p < 0.001) and significantly less persistent AF (30.7% vs 38.1%, p < 0.001). The repeat group showed significantly lower mean RF application duration (2580 s. vs 1960, p < 0.001), less fluoroscopy time (29 min. vs. 27 min., p < 0.001), less mean dose area product (DAP) (3744 cGy × cm2 vs 3325 cGy × cm2, p = 0.001), and shorter study duration (181.2 min. vs 163.6 min., p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the groups was found in terms of mortality (0.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.39), MACE (0.4% vs 0.3%, p = 0.58), MACCE (0.8% vs 0.6%, p = 0.47), composite safety endpoint (1.5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.76), and arrhythmia recurrence (43.8% vs 41.9%, p = 0.37) during 1-year follow-up. Both groups reported to have improved or no symptoms (80.4% vs 77.8%, p = 0.13).CONCLUSION: Repeat catheter ablation is safe and provides a symptomatic relief comparable to index ablation. Repeat procedures are significantly shorter and use less fluoroscopy.

U2 - 10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1

DO - 10.1007/s00392-020-01763-1

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 33112998

VL - 110

SP - 841

EP - 850

JO - CLIN RES CARDIOL

JF - CLIN RES CARDIOL

SN - 1861-0684

IS - 6

ER -