From Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (R.P., J.L.S., C.G., M.G.); University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, Canada, (G.A.W.); Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (J.S.H.); Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada (J.-C.T., L.R.); Centre Hospitalier de L'Universite de Montreal, Quebec, Canada (I.G.); Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada (J.-F.R.); University of Western Ontario, London, Canada (L.G., A.S.L.T.); Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec, Canada (I.N.); Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (P.N.); Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, Canada (D.B.); University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.H.); Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Calgary, Canada (S.B.W.); and St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (I.M.).
Circulation. 2017 May 9;135(19):1788-1798. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026230. Epub 2017 Feb 22.
Radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has become an important therapy for AF; however, recurrence rates remain high. We proposed to determine whether aggressive blood pressure (BP) lowering prevents recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation in patients with AF and a high symptom burden.
We randomly assigned 184 patients with AF and a BP >130/80 mm Hg to aggressive BP (target <120/80 mm Hg) or standard BP (target <140/90 mm Hg) treatment before their scheduled AF catheter ablation. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrence of AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter lasting >30 seconds, determined 3 months beyond catheter ablation by a blinded end-point evaluation.
The median follow-up was 14 months. At 6 months, the mean systolic BP was 123.2±13.2 mm Hg in the aggressive BP treatment group versus 135.4±15.7 mm Hg (<0.001) in the standard treatment group. The primary outcome occurred in 106 patients, 54 (61.4%) in the aggressive BP treatment group compared with 52 (61.2%) in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.38; =0.763). In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the influence of age, patients ≥61 years of age had a lower primary outcome event rate with aggressive BP (hazard ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.97; =0.013). There was a higher rate of hypotension requiring medication adjustment in the aggressive BP group (26% versus 0%).
In this study, this duration of aggressive BP treatment did not reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation for AF but resulted in more hypotension.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00438113.
射频导管消融术已成为房颤的重要治疗手段;然而,其复发率仍然很高。我们旨在确定在有房颤症状且血压(BP)高的患者中,积极降压是否可以预防导管消融后房颤(AF)的复发。
我们将 184 名 BP>130/80mmHg 的房颤患者随机分为积极降压(目标值<120/80mmHg)或标准降压(目标值<140/90mmHg)治疗组,在接受房颤导管消融术前进行降压治疗。主要终点是通过盲法终点评估,在导管消融后 3 个月时确定>30 秒的有症状性 AF/房性心动过速/房扑复发。
中位随访时间为 14 个月。在 6 个月时,积极降压治疗组的平均收缩压为 123.2±13.2mmHg,而标准降压治疗组为 135.4±15.7mmHg(<0.001)。106 名患者发生主要终点事件,积极降压治疗组 54 例(61.4%),标准降压治疗组 52 例(61.2%)(风险比=0.94;95%置信区间,0.65-1.38;=0.763)。在年龄的预设亚组分析中,≥61 岁的患者积极降压治疗的主要终点事件发生率较低(风险比=0.58;95%置信区间,0.34-0.97;=0.013)。积极降压组低血压需要药物调整的发生率较高(26%比 0%)。
在这项研究中,这种持续时间的积极降压治疗并没有降低房颤导管消融后的房性心律失常复发率,但导致更多的低血压。