Relation of Frailty to Outcomes After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves outcomes compared with medical treatment alone. Risk stratification for outcomes following AF ablation remains an important area of uncertainty. This analysis evaluated the association between frailty and outcomes following AF ablation. We eval...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of cardiology 2020-05, Vol.125 (9), p.1317-1323
Main Authors: Kundi, Harun, Noseworthy, Peter A., Valsdottir, Linda R., Shen, Changyu, Yao, Xiaoxi, Yeh, Robert W., Kramer, Daniel B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ablation
Age
Cardiac arrhythmia
Catheters
Codes
Confidence intervals
Evaluation
Fibrillation
Frailty
Government programs
Medicaid
Medical instruments
Medical treatment
Medicare
Morbidity
Mortality
Patients
Radiofrequency ablation
Regression analysis
Risk
Risk groups
Statistical analysis
Uncertainty analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves outcomes compared with medical treatment alone. Risk stratification for outcomes following AF ablation remains an important area of uncertainty. This analysis evaluated the association between frailty and outcomes following AF ablation. We evaluated US inpatients receiving AF ablation between January 1, 2016 and December 1, 2016 using Medicare fee-for-service billing codes. Diagnosis codes were used to calculate patients’ Hospital Frailty Risk Score, with the cohort divided according to established cut-points of low (15) risk for frailty. The primary outcome was survival. Among 5,070 in patients treated with catheter ablation (mean age 74.9 ± 6.8 years, 51.1% female), 38.6% were defined as frail with a Hospital Frailty Risk Score >5, including 8.3% at high risk. Mortality rates (up to 630 days) were 5.8% in the low-risk group, 23.4% in the intermediate-risk group, and 42.2% in the high-risk group (log-rank p values
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.049