Back

Long-Term Outcome after Convergent Procedure for Atrial Fibrillation

Gersak, B.; Podlogar, V.; Prolic Kalinsek, T.; Jan, M.

2023-11-27 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.11.20.23298797 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this single-center retrospective study is to evaluate the long-term outcome after convergent procedure (CP) for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), persistent AF and long-standing persistent AF. Methods and resultsWe analyzed outcomes of patients that underwent CP from January 2009 until July 2020. 119 patients with paroxysmal AF (23.5%), persistent AF (5.9%) or long-standing persistent AF (70.6%) that attended long-term follow up were included. The outcome was assessed at 1-year after CP and at long-term follow up. At 1-year follow up rhythm and daily AF burden were assessed for patients with implantable loop recorder (61.2%). For others rhythm was assessed by clinical presentation and 12-lead ECG recording. At long-term follow up patients having sinus rhythm or unclear history of AF were monitored with 7-day ECG Holter and AF burden was determined. Long-term success was defined as freedom from AF/atrial flutter (AFL) with sinus rhythm on 12-lead ECG recording and AF/AFL burden <1% on 7-day Holter ECG. Repeat catheter ablations (RFA) prior to long-term follow up were documented. At 1-year follow up 91.4% of patients had sinus rhythm and 76.1% of patients had AF/AFL burden <1%. At long-term follow up (8.3 {+/-} 2.8 years) 65.5% of patients had sinus rhythm and 53.8% patients had AF/AFL burden <1% on 7-day holter ECG. Additional RFAs were performed in 32.8% of patients who had AF or AFL burden <1%. At long-term follow up age, body mass index and left atrial volume index were associated with increased risk of AF recurrence. ConclusionsCP resulted in high long-term probability of sinus rhythm maintenance. During long-term follow-up additional RFAs were required to maintain sinus rhythm in a substantial number of patients.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.