Reduced dementia risk in patients with optimized anticoagulation therapy undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with the development of dementia, and observational studies have shown that oral anticoagulation and catheter ablation reduce dementia risk. However, such studies did not consistently report on periprocedural anticoagulation and long-term oral anticoagulation coverage, for which reason the separate effect of AF ablation on dementia risk could not be established. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the protective effect of AF ablation in a large cohort of patients who received optimized anticoagulation and compared them with patients who were managed medically. METHODS: We retrospectively included 5912 consecutive patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation for AF between 2008 and 2018 and compared them with 52,681 control individuals from the Swedish Patient Register. Propensity score matching produced 2 cohorts of equal size (n = 3940) with similar baseline characteristics. Dementia diagnosis was identified by International Classification of Diseases codes from the patient register. RESULTS: Most propensity score-matched patients were taking an oral anticoagulant at the start (94.5%) and end (75.0%) of the study. Mean follow-up was 4.9 ± 2.8 years. Catheter ablation was associated with lower risk for the dementia diagnosis compared with the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.86; P = .017). The result was similar when including patients with a stroke diagnosis before inclusion (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.89; P = .019) and after adjustment for the competing risk of death (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.86; P = .018). CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation of AF in patients with optimized oral anticoagulation therapy was associated with a reduction in dementia diagnosis, even after adjustment for potential confounders and for competing risk of death.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.