Impact of redo ablation for atrial fibrillation on patient‐reported outcomes and quality of life. (2nd November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Farwati, Medhat; Amin, Mustapha; Saliba, Walid I.; Nakagawa, Hiroshi; Tarakji, Khaldoun G.; Diab, Mohamed; Scandinaro, Anna; Madden, Ruth; Bouscher, Patricia; Kuroda, Shunsuke; Kanj, Mohamed; Dresing, Thomas J.; Callahan, Thomas D.; Bhargava, Mandeep; Sroubek, Jakub; Baranowski, Bryan; Rickard, John; Cantillon, Daniel J.; Tchou, Patrick J.; Wazni, Oussama M.; Hussein, Ayman A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 34:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 54
• Page End: 61
• Publication Date: 2022-11-02
• Subjects: atrial fibrillation -- catheter ablation -- quality of life; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15710
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently used for the purpose of rhythm control and improved quality of life (QoL). Although success rates are high, a significant proportion of patients require redo ablation. Data are scarce on patient‐centered outcomes and QoL in patients undergoing redo AF ablation. We aimed to assess QoL and clinical outcomes using a large prospectively maintained patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) registry. Methods: All patients undergoing redo AF ablation (2013–2016) at our center were enrolled in a prospective registry for outcomes and assessed for QoL using automated PRO surveys (baseline, 3 and 6 months after ablation, every 6 months thereafter). Data were collected over 3 years of follow‐up. The atrial fibrillation symptom severity scale (AFSSS) was used as the main measure for QoL. Additional variables included patient‐reported improvement, AF burden, and AF‐related healthcare utilization including emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations. Results: A total of 848 patients were included (28% females, mean age 63.8, 51% persistent AF). By automated PRO, significant improvement in QoL was noted (baseline median AFSSS of 12 [5–18] and ranged between 2 and 4 on subsequent assessments; p < .0001), with ≥70%of patients reported remarkable improvement in their AF‐related symptoms. The proportion of patients in AF at the time of baseline survey was 36%, and this decreased to <8% across all time points during follow‐up ( p < .0001). AF burden was significantly reduced (including frequency and duration of episodes; p < .0001), with an associated decrease in healthcare utilization after 6 months from the time of ablation (including ER visits and hospitalizations; p < .0001). The proportion of patients on anticoagulants or antiarrhythmics decreased on follow‐up across all time points ( p < .0001 for all variables). Conclusion: Most patients derive significant QoL benefit from redo AF ablation; with reduction of both AF burden and healthcare utilization.