Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40(16):1257-1264. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz085.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in practice: assessing CABANA generalizability.

Author information

1
Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA.
2
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA.
3
Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, 800 Washington St, Boston, MA, USA.
4
Department of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, 800 Washington St, Boston, MA, USA.
5
Duke Center for Atrial Fibrillation, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, 2400 Pratt St, Durham, NC, USA.
6
Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 205 3rd Ave SW, Rochester, MN, USA.
7
OptumLabs, One Main Street, 10th Floor, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Abstract

AIMS:

The Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial aimed to assess the impact of ablation on morbidity and mortality. This observational study was conducted in parallel to CABANA to assess trial generalizability.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

Using a large US administrative database, we identified 183 760 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with ablation or medical therapy (antiarrhythmic or rate control drugs) between 1 August 2009 and 30 April 2016 (CABANA enrolment period). Propensity score weighting was used to balance patients treated with ablation (N = 12 032) or medical therapy alone (N = 171 728) on 90 dimensions. Ablation was associated with a reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, and cardiac arrest [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.81; P < 0.001]. The majority of patients (73.8%) were potentially trial eligible; among whom the risk reduction associated with ablation was greatest (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.77; P < 0.001). Among the 3.8% of patients who failed to meet the inclusion criterion, i.e. patients under 65 years without stroke risk factors, the event rates were low and there was no significant relationship with ablation (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.56; P = 0.35). Among the 22.4% patients who met at least one of the trial exclusion criteria, there was a lesser but statistically significant reduction associated with ablation (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION:

In routine clinical care, ablation was associated with a reduction in the primary CABANA composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, and cardiac arrest, particularly in patients who were eligible for the trial.

KEYWORDS:

Ablation; Atrial fibrillation; Mortality; Stroke

PMID:
30875424
DOI:
10.1093/eurheartj/ehz085

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center