Sato T, Sotomi Y, Hikoso S, Nakatani D, Mizuno H, Okada K, Dohi T, Kitamura T, Sunaga A, Kida H, Oeun B, Egami Y, Watanabe T, Minamiguchi H, Miyoshi M, Tanaka N, Oka T, Okada M, Kanda T, Matsuda Y, Kawasaki M, Masuda M, Inoue K, Sakata Y. DR-FLASH Score Is Useful for Identifying Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Who Require Extensive Catheter Ablation Procedures.
J Am Heart Assoc 2022;
11:e024916. [PMID:
35929474 PMCID:
PMC9496301 DOI:
10.1161/jaha.121.024916]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Background
Modification of arrhythmogenic substrates with extensive ablation comprising linear and/or complex fractional atrial electrogram ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI‐plus) can theoretically reduce the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. The DR‐FLASH score (score based on diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, persistent form of atrial fibrillation, left atrialdiameter >45 mm, age >65 years, female sex, and hypertension) is reportedly useful for identifying patients with arrhythmogenic substrates. We hypothesized that, in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, the DR‐FLASH score can be used to classify patients into those who require PVI‐plus and those for whom a PVI‐only strategy is sufficient.
Methods and Results
This study is a post hoc subanalysis of the a multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial investigating efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation alone for recurrence prevention compared with extensive ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (EARNEST‐PVI trial). This analysis focuses on the relationship between DR‐FLASH score and the efficacy of different ablation strategies. We divided the population into 2 groups based on a DR‐FLASH score of 3 points. A total of 469 patients were analyzed. Among those with a DR‐FLASH score >3 (N=279), the event rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence was significantly lower in the PVI‐plus arm than in the PVI‐only arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28–0.72]; P<0.001). In contrast, among patients with a DR‐FLASH score ≤3 (N=217), no differences were observed in the event rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence between the PVI‐only arm and the PVI‐plus arm (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.61–1.89]; P=0.795). There was significant interaction between patients with a DR‐FLASH score >3 and DR‐FLASH score ≤3 (P value for interaction=0.020).
Conclusions
The DR‐FLASH score is a useful tool for deciding the catheter ablation strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Registration
URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03514693.
Collapse