Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Regimes in a Multicenter Cohort of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Mitral Valve Repair Patients.
Aged
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
/ therapeutic use
Anticoagulants
/ therapeutic use
Atrial Fibrillation
/ drug therapy
Cardiac Catheterization
/ methods
Comorbidity
Female
Humans
Male
Medication Therapy Management
Mitral Valve Annuloplasty
/ methods
Mitral Valve Insufficiency
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiology
ISSN: 1540-8183
Titre abrégé: J Interv Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8907826
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
revised:
22
07
2020
accepted:
18
08
2020
entrez:
16
9
2020
pubmed:
17
9
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a highly prevalent comorbidity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR). Recent studies show a deleterious outcome of patients with concomitant AF after transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR). This underlines the essential need for additional strategies that ameliorate the prognosis of these patients. Fundamental data on AF characteristics and treatment regimes in this special cohort of patients are lacking. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 542 consecutive patients with severe MR undergoing TMVR in three tertiary heart centers with special focus on AF type and underlying treatment strategies. The prevalence of concomitant AF was 73.3%, and AF did not affect the procedural success or the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The patients with AF were more frequently >75 years, had more tricuspid regurgitation, and less coronary artery disease than non-AF patients. The distribution of AF types was 32% paroxysmal AF, 27% persistent AF, and 41% permanent AF. Except for a higher degree in severe tricuspid regurgitation and a higher likelihood of male sex, no substantial differences were observed while comparing permanent and nonpermanent AF patients. The predominant treatment regime was rate control (57%), with only beta blockers (BB) in the majority of persistent and permanent AF patients, while additional digitalis or a pacemaker was used infrequently. Rhythm control was mainly achieved with BB alone in paroxysmal AF patients and with additional antiarrhythmic drugs in the majority of persistent AF patients. Interventional rhythm control therapy was performed in 2.5% and 30.9% of paroxysmal and persistent AF patients, respectively. The guideline-adherent use of oral anticoagulants was comparable and high in both groups (91.9% in nonpermanent vs. 90.1% in permanent AF). This is the first study to provide necessary information for the understanding of the current clinical practice in dealing with TMVR patients. Since evidence suggests that AF is not a benign concomitant disease, further investigations are needed to assess the prognostic impact of these different AF treatment strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a highly prevalent comorbidity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR). Recent studies show a deleterious outcome of patients with concomitant AF after transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR). This underlines the essential need for additional strategies that ameliorate the prognosis of these patients. Fundamental data on AF characteristics and treatment regimes in this special cohort of patients are lacking.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the data of 542 consecutive patients with severe MR undergoing TMVR in three tertiary heart centers with special focus on AF type and underlying treatment strategies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prevalence of concomitant AF was 73.3%, and AF did not affect the procedural success or the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The patients with AF were more frequently >75 years, had more tricuspid regurgitation, and less coronary artery disease than non-AF patients. The distribution of AF types was 32% paroxysmal AF, 27% persistent AF, and 41% permanent AF. Except for a higher degree in severe tricuspid regurgitation and a higher likelihood of male sex, no substantial differences were observed while comparing permanent and nonpermanent AF patients. The predominant treatment regime was rate control (57%), with only beta blockers (BB) in the majority of persistent and permanent AF patients, while additional digitalis or a pacemaker was used infrequently. Rhythm control was mainly achieved with BB alone in paroxysmal AF patients and with additional antiarrhythmic drugs in the majority of persistent AF patients. Interventional rhythm control therapy was performed in 2.5% and 30.9% of paroxysmal and persistent AF patients, respectively. The guideline-adherent use of oral anticoagulants was comparable and high in both groups (91.9% in nonpermanent vs. 90.1% in permanent AF).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to provide necessary information for the understanding of the current clinical practice in dealing with TMVR patients. Since evidence suggests that AF is not a benign concomitant disease, further investigations are needed to assess the prognostic impact of these different AF treatment strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32934608
doi: 10.1155/2020/6542028
pmc: PMC7474750
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
0
Anticoagulants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6542028Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Christian Waechter et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
SB and HN received speaker's honoraria from Abbott Vascular. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Biomolecules. 2018 Nov 19;8(4):
pubmed: 30463247
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2307-2318
pubmed: 30280640
JAMA. 2005 Nov 9;294(18):2323-9
pubmed: 16278360
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 3;59(14):1312-9
pubmed: 22464260
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(5):731-732an
pubmed: 29438514
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 01;378(5):417-427
pubmed: 29385358
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Aug;30(8):1207-1214
pubmed: 31045293
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 15;90(6):1038-1045
pubmed: 28568427
Am J Med. 2013 Oct;126(10):887-93
pubmed: 24054956
Med Sci Monit. 2004 Sep;10(9):CR516-20
pubmed: 15328484
Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37(38):2893-2962
pubmed: 27567408
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Nov;7(6):896-904
pubmed: 25387780
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Mar 25;12(6):569-578
pubmed: 30898255
Circulation. 2012 Dec 4;126(23):2680-7
pubmed: 23124034
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1399-409
pubmed: 25853744
Circ J. 2018 Apr 25;82(5):1451-1458
pubmed: 29553091
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012 Oct;24(5):517-23
pubmed: 22572627
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jul 1;84(1):137-46
pubmed: 24323541
Circ J. 2018 Oct 25;82(11):2800-2810
pubmed: 30210070
EuroIntervention. 2017 Feb 20;12(14):1697-1705
pubmed: 28216472
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2015 Aug;1(4):326-334
pubmed: 29759321
Circulation. 2019 Jul 9;140(2):e125-e151
pubmed: 30686041
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Dec 1;120(11):2035-2040
pubmed: 29033048
J Cardiol. 2006 Dec;48(6):315-23
pubmed: 17243626