Left Atrial Appendage Closure With Catheter Ablation vs. Ablation Alone on Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
2024

Comparing Left Atrial Appendage Closure with Catheter Ablation vs. Ablation Alone for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure

Sample size: 233865 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Muacevic Alexander, Adler John R, Uwumiro Fidelis E, Oghotuoma Oghenemaro O, Eyiah Nathaniel, Ojukwu Somto, Uwaoma Gentle C, Okpujie Victory, Daboner Temabore V, Mgbecheta Justice C, Ewelugo Claire A, Agu Ifeanyi, Oshodi Omolade, Ezulike Stanley S, Ogidan Afeez O

Hypothesis

Does combining left atrial appendage closure with catheter ablation improve outcomes for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared to catheter ablation alone?

Conclusion

Combining left atrial appendage closure with catheter ablation does not lead to better in-hospital outcomes compared to catheter ablation alone in managing atrial fibrillation among heart failure patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • LAACCA was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay (10.6 vs 5.6 days).
  • LAACCA had a higher mortality rate (2.8% vs 1.4%).
  • Mean hospital costs were higher for LAACCA ($289,960 vs $183,932).
  • LAACCA was linked to more complications like acute myocardial ischemia and pneumonia.

Takeaway

This study looked at two treatments for heart problems and found that one treatment didn't work better than the other, even though it was more complicated.

Methodology

The study analyzed adult hospitalizations with heart failure and atrial fibrillation using a nationwide inpatient sample and employed propensity score matching to compare outcomes.

Potential Biases

Residual treatment selection bias may exist despite propensity score matching.

Limitations

The study is retrospective and may have unaccounted confounding factors, and it does not explore long-term post-discharge outcomes.

Participant Demographics

The cohort comprised mostly males (64.6%) with a mean age of 67.4 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI, 1.67-2.55

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.7759/cureus.74577

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication