Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine Osaka Japan.
Department of Transformative System for Medical Information Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine Osaka Japan.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Aug 16;11(16):e024916. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024916. Epub 2022 Aug 5.
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]; <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]; =0.795). There was significant interaction between patients with a DR-FLASH score >3 and DR-FLASH score ≤3 ( 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.
在广泛消融的基础上进行心律失常基质的修饰,包括线性和/或复杂的分数心房电图消融,以及肺静脉隔离(PVI-plus),理论上可以降低心房颤动的复发率。DR-FLASH 评分(基于糖尿病、肾功能障碍、持续性房颤、左心房直径>45mm、年龄>65 岁、女性和高血压的评分)据报道可用于识别具有心律失常基质的患者。我们假设,在持续性心房颤动患者中,DR-FLASH 评分可用于将患者分为需要 PVI-plus 和仅需要 PVI 策略的患者。
本研究是一项多中心、随机、对照、非劣效性试验的事后亚分析,该试验旨在比较单独进行肺静脉隔离与广泛消融在持续性心房颤动患者中预防复发的疗效和安全性(EARNEST-PVI 试验)。本分析重点关注 DR-FLASH 评分与不同消融策略疗效之间的关系。我们根据 DR-FLASH 评分将人群分为 2 组。共分析了 469 例患者。在 DR-FLASH 评分>3 的患者(N=279)中,PVI-plus 组的心房心律失常复发事件发生率明显低于 PVI-only 组(风险比[HR],0.45[95%CI,0.28-0.72];<0.001)。相反,在 DR-FLASH 评分≤3 的患者(N=217)中,PVI-only 组和 PVI-plus 组的心房心律失常复发事件发生率无差异(HR,1.08[95%CI,0.61-1.89];=0.795)。DR-FLASH 评分>3 的患者和 DR-FLASH 评分≤3 的患者之间存在显著的交互作用(值为交互作用=0.020)。
DR-FLASH 评分是决定持续性心房颤动患者导管消融策略的有用工具。