ResearchPad - ablation-for-atrial-fibrillation Default RSS Feed en-us © 2020 Newgen KnowledgeWorks <![CDATA[Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models]]> We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation.Methods and resultsSystematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model for predicting AF recurrence after ablation. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) measures were extracted. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical and methodological differences between studies, but c-statistics were presented in forest plots. Thirty-three studies developing or validating 13 models were included; eight studies compared two or more models. Common model variables were left atrial parameters, type of AF, and age. Model discriminatory ability was highly variable and no model had consistently poor or good performance. Most studies did not assess model calibration. The main risk of bias concern was the lack of internal validation which may have resulted in overly optimistic and/or biased model performance estimates. No model impact studies were identified.ConclusionOur systematic review suggests that clinical risk prediction of AF after ablation has potential, but there remains a need for robust evaluation of risk factors and development of risk scores. ]]> <![CDATA[Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with vitamin K antagonists for peri-procedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis]]>

Rivaroxaban is increasingly used in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). In the absence of large controlled trials, a comprehensive meta-analysis of the literature appears to be the best way to obtain reliable evidence on rare peri-procedural outcomes such as thromboembolic or bleeding events. We aimed to provide a detailed analysis of currently available data on safety and efficacy of peri-procedural rivaroxaban in patients undergoing AF ablation. We performed a systematic search of the English language literature for studies comparing peri-procedural rivaroxaban therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and reporting detailed data on bleeding and/or thromboembolic complications. The Peto odds ratio (POR) was used to pool data into a fixed-effect meta-analysis. A total of 7400 patients undergoing catheter ablation were included in 15 observational and 1 randomized studies of which 1994 were receiving rivaroxaban and 5406 VKA. The risk of thromboembolism trended to be lower in the rivaroxaban group [4/1954 vs. 19/5219, POR 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16–1.01, P = 0.052]. Major bleeding events occurred in 23 of 1994 cases (1.15%) in the rivaroxaban and 90 of 5406 (1.66%) in the VKA group (POR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.46–1.21, P = 0.23). A total of 87 minor bleeding events were reported in 1753 patients (4.96%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 165 of 4009 patients (4.12%) in the VKA group (POR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.11, p = 0.22). In patients undergoing AF ablation, rivaroxaban appears to be an effective and safe alternative to VKA.