Comparison of CHADS2, R2 CHADS2, and - CHA2DS2 VASc Scores for the Prediction of Rhythm Outcomes After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation The Leipzig Heart Center AF Ablation Registry
Comparison of CHADS2, R2 CHADS2, and - CHA2DS2 VASc Scores for the Prediction of Rhythm Outcomes After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation The Leipzig Heart Center AF Ablation Registry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1161/circep.113.001182
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
影响因子：
8.4
通讯作者：
Bollmann, Andreas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kornej, Jelena;Hindricks, Gerhard;Bollmann, Andreas
背景：房颤（AF）在导管消融后1年内复发率高达30%。本研究评估了CHADS(2)、R(2)CHADS(2)和CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc评分对房颤导管消融后心律结局的预测价值。方法和结果使用莱比锡心脏中心房颤消融登记，我们记录了2069例接受房颤导管消融的患者（67%为男性，6010年，35%为持续性房颤）在前12个月内的心律结局。房颤复发定义为消融后第一周（早期复发，ERAF）和3 - 12个月（晚期复发，LRAF）内发生的任何心房心律失常。ERAF和LRAF发生率分别为36%和33%。在多变量分析中，R(2)CHADS(2)（优势比[OR]， 1.11； 95%可信区间[CI]， 1.02-1.21； P=0.016）和CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc （OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.017-1.17； P=0.015）评分以及持续性房颤和左房内径是ERAF的显著预测因子。同样，即使在调整ERAF后，相同的临床变量仍然是LRAF的重要预测因子，ERAF是LRAF的最强预测因子(HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.62-3.71； P
Background Recurrences of atrial fibrillation (AF) occur in up to 30% within 1 year after catheter ablation. This study evaluated the value of CHADS(2), R(2)CHADS(2), and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores for the prediction of rhythm outcomes after AF catheter ablation.Methods and Results Using the Leipzig Heart Center AF Ablation Registry, we documented rhythm outcomes within the first 12 months in 2069 patients (67% men; 6010 years; 35% persistent AF) undergoing AF catheter ablation. AF recurrences were defined as any atrial arrhythmia occurring within the first week (early recurrences, ERAF) and between 3 and 12 months (late recurrences, LRAF) after ablation. ERAF and LRAF occurred in 36% and 33%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, R(2)CHADS(2) (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.21; P=0.016) and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.017-1.17; P=0.015) scores as well as persistent AF and left atrial diameter were significant predictors for ERAF. Similarly, the same clinical variables remained significant predictors for LRAF even after adjustment for ERAF, which was the strongest predictor for LRAF (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.62-3.71; P