Short-term outcomes of atrial flutter ablation

Heart failure and atrial flutter: a systematic review of current knowledge and practices

While the interplay between heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been extensively studied, little is known regarding HF and atrial flutter (AFL), which may be managed differently. We reviewed the incidence, prevalence, and predictors of HF in AFL and vice versa, and the outcomes of treatment of AFL in HF. A systematic literature review of PubMed/Medline and EMBASE yielded 65 studies for inclusion and qualitative synthesis. No study described the incidence or prevalence of AFL in unselected patients with HF. Most cohorts enrolled patients with AF/AFL as interchangeable diagnoses, or highly selected patients with tachycardia‐induced cardiomyopathy. The prevalence of HF in AFL ranged from 6% to 56%. However, the phenotype of HF was never defined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). No studies reported the predictors, phenotype, and prognostic implications of AFL in HF. There was significant variation in treatments studied, including the proportion that underwent ablation. When systolic dysfunction was tachycardia‐mediated, catheter ablation demonstrated LVEF normalization in up to 88%, as well as reduced cardiovascular mortality. In summary, AFL and HF often coexist but are understudied, with no randomized trial data to inform care. Further research is warranted to define the epidemiology and establish optimal management.

Outcomes and Resource Utilization Associated With Readmissions After Atrial Fibrillation Hospitalizations

Background

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia worldwide. Data regarding 30‐day readmission rates after discharge for atrial fibrillation remain poorly reported.

Methods and Results

The Nationwide Readmission Database (2010–2014) was queried using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9) codes to identify study population. Incidence, etiologies of 30‐day readmission and predictors of 30‐day readmissions, and cost of care were analyzed. Among 1 723 378 patients who survived to discharge, 249 343 (14.4%) patients were readmitted within 30 days. Compared with the readmitted group, the nonreadmitted group had higher utilization of electrical cardioversion and catheter ablation. Atrial fibrillation was the most common cause of readmission (24.1%). Median time to 30‐day readmission was 13 days. Advancing age, female sex, and longer stay during index hospitalization predicted higher 30‐day readmissions, whereas private insurance, electrical cardioversion, catheter ablation, higher income, and elective admissions correlated with lower 30‐day readmission. Comorbidities such as heart failure, neurological disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver failure, coagulopathy, anemia, peripheral vascular disease, and electrolyte disturbance, correlated with increased 30‐day readmissions and cost burden. Trend analysis showed a progressive decline in 30‐day readmission rates from 14.7% in 2010 to 14.3% in 2014 (P trend, <0.001).

Conclusions

Approximately 1 in 7 patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge, with symptomatic atrial fibrillation being the most common cause. We identified a predictive model for increased risk of readmissions and treatment expense. Electrical cardioversion during index admission was associated with a significant reduction in 30‐day readmissions and service charges. The 30‐day readmissions correlated with a substantial rise in the cost of care.

Prophylactic Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Atrial Flutter Patients without Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Background

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is common after atrial flutter (AFL) ablation, but it was unclear whether AF ablation could reduce the incidence of AF in AFL patients without AF history. The present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the benefit of prophylactic AF ablation in reducing the occurrence of AF in typical AFL patients.

Material/Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of AF ablation in reducing the occurrence of AF in AFL patients without AF. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to control random errors and calculate the required information size.

Results

Four trials (n=357 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. The incidence of AF after AFL ablation was 46.4%. We observed that prophylactic AF ablation reduced the AF incidence compared with simple AFL ablation (26.1% versus 46.4%, RR: 0.57, 95% CIs: 0.42–0.76, P=0.0002) with a prolonged procedure duration (P<0.00001) and fluoroscopy time (P=0.004). Further TSA indicated that more RCTs were needed to reach more conclusive results. There was no significant difference in clinical complications (P=0.33) between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis provides evidence that prophylactic AF ablation may be more effective than simple AFL ablation in reducing AF incidence after AFL ablation. Large prospective RCTs are warranted to confirm the benefit of prophylactic AF ablation in AFL patients without AF history.