Comparison of Clinical Factors Between Recurrent and Non-recurrent Atrial Fibrillation Within One Year After Catheter Ablation by the Same Operators at a Regional Core Hospital in Japan.
Toshio Katagiri, Takuya Kishi, Yoshitaka Hirooka, Tadashi Yamamoto, Masataka Kajiwara, Takashi Fujimura, Tomohiro Imamura, Ayako Takamori, Tomohito Inage
Abstract
Open AccessAlthough catheter ablation has emerged as a cornerstone treatment for atrial fibrillation, recurrence after catheter ablation occurs in approximately 20%-40% of patients within one year. Moreover, advances in devices, evolving treatment strategies, and differences in operator proficiency are believed to significantly impact outcomes. Whether results from large-scale international clinical trials can be directly applied to clinical practice at a regional core hospital in Japan remains a matter of debate. Considering these backgrounds, this study aimed to compare the clinical factors between recurrent and non-recurrent groups after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in a regional core hospital in Japan, using the same treatment approach conducted by the same operators. A total of 368 consecutive patients who had their first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation at our hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were divided into two groups: non-recurrent (n = 311) and recurrent (n = 57). The recurrent group had significantly longer procedure time (196 ± 64 vs. 174 ± 66 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05, 0.62; P = 0.021), more cases of early recurrence (42% vs. 13%; 95% CI 2.69, 8.82; P = 0.001), higher rates of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (39% vs. 22%; 95% CI 1.23, 4.08; P = 0.008), greater left atrial volume index (LAVI) (49.8 ± 19.7 vs. 37.7 ± 14.6 mL/m2; 95% CI 6.46, 17.56; P = 0.001), more patients with LAVI > 48.9 mL/m2 (51% vs. 22%; 95%CI 2.01, 6.83; P = 0.0001), and more patients with the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (26% vs. 17%; 95% CI 0.98, 3.50; P = 0.046) than the non-recurrent group. Additional left atrial posterior wall isolation (LAPWI) for persistent and long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation were more frequent in the recurrent group (LAPWI for persistent atrial fibrillation (26% vs. 14%; 95% CI 1.14, 4.36; P = 0.029), LAPWI for long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation (19% vs. 8%; 95% CI 1.21, 5.67; P = 0.023), CTI ablation for long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation (30% vs. 13% cases; 95% CI 1.53, 5.11; P = 0.001)). Recurrent rate was significantly lower in cryoballoon than in radiofrequency catheter ablation in all types of atrial fibrillation. In the non-recurrent group, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and LAVI were significantly lower, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly higher at one year after catheter ablation than before (BNP: 63.5 ± 138.4 vs. 144.8 ± 168.3 pg/mL, P = 0.001, 95% CI -0.69, -0.37; LAVI: 31.3 ± 12.3vs. 37.1 ± 14.6 mL/m2, P = 0.001, 95% CI -0.69, -0.32; LVEF: 58.9 ± 7.7 vs. 55.2 ± 10.2 %, P = 0.001, 95% CI -0.25, -0.57). In the recurrent group, eGFR was significantly lower at one year after catheter ablation than before catheter ablation (53.3 ± 25.2 vs. 60.4 ± 24.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.021, 95% CI -0.58, -0.05). In conclusion, in cases of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with significantly large LAVI (>49.8 mL/m2), eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, extended procedure time, and early recurrence within 90 days after catheter ablation, recognizing the possibility of recurrence within one year after catheter ablation and conducting follow-up with a focus on renal protection may provide valuable insights for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in regional core hospitals in Japan.