Clinical outcomes of ablation versus non-ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation in Japan: analysis of pooled data from the AF Frontier Ablation Registry and SAKURA AF Registry.

Whether ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is, in terms of clinical outcomes, beneficial for Japanese patients has not been clarified. Drawing data from 2 Japanese AF registries (AF Frontier Ablation Registry and SAKURA AF Registry), we compared the incidence of clinically relevant events (CREs), including stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, cardiovascular events, and death, between patients who underwent ablation (n = 3451) and those who did not (n = 2930). We also compared propensity-score matched patients (n = 1414 in each group). In propensity-scored patients who underwent ablation and those who did not, mean follow-up times were 27.2 and 35.8 months, respectively. Annualized rates for stroke/TIA (1.04 vs. 1.06%), major bleeding (1.44 vs. 1.20%), cardiovascular events (2.15 vs. 2.49%) were similar (P = 0.96, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively), but annualized death rates were lower in the ablation group than in the non-ablation group (0.75 vs.1.28%, P = 0.028). After multivariate adjustment, the risk of CREs was statistically equivalent between the ablation and non-ablation groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.11), but it was significantly low among patients who underwent ablation for paroxysmal AF (HR 0.68 [vs. persistent AF], 95% CI 0.49-0.94) and had a CHADS-VASc score  < 3 (HR 0.66 [vs. CHADS-VASc score ≥ 3], 95% CI 0.43-0.98]). The 2-year risk reduction achieved by ablation may be small among Japanese patients, but AF ablation may benefit those with paroxysmal AF and a CHADS-VASc score < 3.