4.1 Article

Impactof race and gender on clinical outcomes of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 10, Pages 1073-1079

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.13165

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; gender; race

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/NHLBI [1K08HL117082-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Radiofrequency catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment of drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the efficacy of CA by race and gender has not been well characterized. We sought to determine the impact of ethnicity and gender on clinical outcome following CA in patients with AF. Methods: Patients who underwent CA for AF from September 2013 to April 2016 were included in this study. Patients were identified retrospectively and followed prospectively. Results: A total of 118 patients (15.3% black and 78.8% white, 33% female) comprised the cohort, with mean age at ablation 63.4 10.4 years. Black patients were older at time of the procedure (65.4vs 63.4 years old) and had more prevalent comorbidities, including hypertension (77.8%vs 63.4%), diabetes (33.3%vs 15.0%), chronic kidney disease (22.2%vs 7.5%), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8%vs 56.2%). Blacks also had significantly larger left atrial size (P=0.03). Late recurrence of AF was similar between blacks and whites (33.3%vs 34.4%, P=1) as well as between women and men (28.2%vs 36.7%, P=0.41). Early recurrence was predictive of late recurrence in men (P<0.001) but not in women (P=0.48). Enlarged left atrium and early recurrence of AF were significant predictors for late recurrence of AF in the cohort. Conclusions: CA for AF is equally effective in black patients despite more prevalent comorbidity and increased left atrial size. Early recurrence of AF after CA was not predictive of late recurrence of AF in women but was in men.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available