Dataset Information

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy on Quality of Life Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Catheter ablation is more effective than drug therapy in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but its incremental effect on long-term quality of life (QOL) is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether catheter ablation is more beneficial than conventional drug therapy for improving QOL in patients with AF.

Design, setting, and participants

An open-label randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation vs drug therapy in 2204 symptomatic patients with AF older than 65 years or 65 years or younger with at least 1 risk factor for stroke. Patients were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016 from 126 centers in 10 countries. Follow-up ended in December 2017.

Interventions

Pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablation procedures at the discretion of the investigators, for the catheter ablation group (n = 1108) and standard rhythm and/or rate-control drugs selected and managed by investigators for the drug therapy group (n = 1096).

Main outcomes and measures

Prespecified co-primary QOL end points at 12 months, including the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary score (range, 0-100; 0 indicates complete disability and 100 indicates no disability; patient-level clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score (range, 0-40; 0 indicates no symptoms and 40 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.6 points) and severity score (range, 0-30; 0 indicates no symptoms and 30 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.3 points).

Results

Among 2204 randomized patients (median age, 68 years; 1385 patients [63%] were men, 946 [43%] had paroxysmal AF, and 1256 [57%] had persistent AF), the median follow-up was 48.5 months, and 1968 (89%) completed the trial. The mean AFEQT summary score was more favorable in the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (86.4 points vs 80.9 points) (adjusted difference, 5.3 points [95% CI, 3.7-6.9]; P < .001). The mean MAFSI frequency score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (6.4 points vs 8.1 points) (adjusted difference, -1.7 points [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2]; P < .001) and the mean MAFSI severity score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (5.0 points vs 6.5 points) (adjusted difference, -1.5 points [95% CI, -2.0 to -1.1]; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, led to clinically important and significant improvements in quality of life at 12 months. These findings can help guide decisions regarding management of atrial fibrillation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

SUBMITTER: Mark DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point.MethodsMedical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective.ResultsCosts in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained.ConclusionsCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Project description:BackgroundObservational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation).MethodsPatients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models.ResultsOf 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age.ConclusionsWe found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Project description:ImportanceQuality of life is not a standard primary outcome in ablation trials, even though symptoms drive the indication.ObjectiveTo assess quality of life with catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic medication at 12 months in patients with atrial fibrillation.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial at 4 university hospitals in Sweden and 1 in Finland of 155 patients aged 30-70 years with more than 6 months of atrial fibrillation and treatment failure with 1 antiarrhythmic drug or β-blocker, with 4-year follow-up. Study dates were July 2008-September 2017. Major exclusions were ejection fraction <35%, left atrial diameter >60 mm, ventricular pacing dependency, and previous ablation.InterventionsPulmonary vein isolation ablation (n = 79) or previously untested antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 76).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was the General Health subscale score (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) at baseline and 12 months, assessed unblinded (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]). There were 26 secondary outcomes, including atrial fibrillation burden (% of time) from baseline to 12 months, measured by implantable cardiac monitors. The first 3 months were excluded from rhythm analysis.ResultsAmong 155 randomized patients (mean age, 56.1 years; 22.6% women), 97% completed the trial. Of 79 patients randomized to receive ablation, 75 underwent ablation, including 2 who crossed over to medication and 14 who underwent repeated ablation procedures. Of 76 patients randomized to receive antiarrhythmic medication, 74 received it, including 8 who crossed over to ablation and 43 for whom the first drug used failed. General Health score increased from 61.8 to 73.9 points in the ablation group vs 62.7 to 65.4 points in the medication group (between-group difference, 8.9 points; 95% CI, 3.1-14.7; P = .003). Of 26 secondary end points, 5 were analyzed; 2 were null and 2 were statistically significant, including decrease in atrial fibrillation burden (from 24.9% to 5.5% in the ablation group vs 23.3% to 11.5% in the medication group; difference -6.8% [95% CI, -12.9% to -0.7%]; P = .03). Of the Health Survey subscales, 5 of 7 improved significantly. Most common adverse events were urosepsis (5.1%) in the ablation group and atrial tachycardia (3.9%) in the medication group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite use of antiarrhythmic medication, the improvement in quality of life at 12 months was greater for those treated with catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic medication. Although the study was limited by absence of blinding, catheter ablation may offer an advantage for quality of life.Trial registrationclinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2008-001384-11.

Project description:BackgroundThe CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial.MethodsThe authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach.ResultsMedian age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF.ConclusionsCatheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).

Project description:ImportanceCatheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF.Design, setting, and participantsThe Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017.InterventionsThe catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence.ResultsOf the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Project description:AimsInfluence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA).Methods and resultsCABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8).ConclusionPrognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups.Clinicaltrials.gov identifierNCT00911508.