Search

Introduction: Little is known about very early atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation after first AF detection., Methods: We evaluated patients with AF ablation <4 months from newly diagnosed paroxysmal AF (NEWPaAF) and newly diagnosed persistent AF (NEWPeAF). We compared the two patient populations and compared ablation outcomes to those undergoing later ablation., Results: Ablation was done <4 months from AF diagnosis in 353 patients (135 = paroxysmal, 218 = persistent). Early ablation outcome was best for NEWPaAF versus NEWPeAF for initial (p = 0.030) but not final (p = 0.102) ablation. Despite recent AF diagnosis in both groups, they were clinically quite different. NEWPaAF patients were younger (64.3 ± 13.0 vs. 67.3 ± 10.9, p = 0.0020), failed fewer drugs (0.39 vs. 0.60, p = 0.007), had smaller LA size (4.12 ± 0.58 vs. 4.48 ± 0.59 cm, p < 0.0001), lower BMI (28.8 ± 5.0 vs. 30.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.016), and less CAD (3.7% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.007), cardiomyopathies (2.2% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.0001), hypertension (46.7% vs. 67.4%, p < 0.0001), diabetes (8.1% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.011) and sleep apnea (20.0% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.031). For NEWPaAF, early ablation AF-free outcome was no better than later ablation (p = 0.314). For NEWPeAF, AF-free outcomes were better for early ablation than later ablation (p < 0.0001). Delaying ablation allowed more strokes/TIAs in both AF types (paroxysmal p = 0.014, persistent p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients presenting for early ablation after newly diagnosed persistent AF have more pre-existing comorbidities and worse initial ablation outcomes than patients with NEWPaAF. For NEWPaAF, there was no advantage to early ablation, as long as the AF remained paroxysmal. For NEWPeAF, early ablation gave better outcomes than later ablation and they should undergo early ablation. For both AF types, waiting was associated with more neurologic events, suggesting all patients should consider earlier ablation., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The long-term outcome of the patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) is not well known., Methods and Results: Relevant studies published through May 21, 2014 were searched and identified in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases and a hand search of article references was also performed. Random-effect models were used for pooling proportions of mortality and recurrent events. Twenty-three studies were included with a total of 639 patients (449 males) with a mean age ranging from 33 to 51 years. Eighty percent of patients had received ICD implantation. Over an average of 5.3 years follow-up, 167 patients (31%) experienced a recurrence of ventricular arrhythmic events (proportion, 0.29 [95% CI 0.21-0.38]). Moreover, 17 patients (3.1%) died among all studies (proportion, 0.01 [95% CI 0.00-0.04]). No association was found between the induction of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation at baseline electrophysiological study and risk of recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (risk difference: 0.12 [95% CI, 0.08-0.32])., Conclusions: In patients with IVF, this meta-analysis revealed an estimated recurrent event rate of 31% and a pooled mortality rate of 3.1% during an average of 5 years follow-up. The results of baseline electrophysiological studies are not predictive of future ventricular arrhythmias., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)