CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc Score as a Predictor for Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Clinical Outcomes Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Background Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in adults, associated with serious cardiovascular complications such as ischemic stroke, heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) is an established rhythm‐control strategy for AF . Although the CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc score is primarily used to estimate stroke risk in patients with AF , its potential utility in predicting AF recurrence after PVI has not been fully explored in contemporary, real‐world multicenter settings. Aim To evaluate the association between the CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc score and both AF recurrence and adverse clinical outcomes following PVI . Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Israeli Catheter Ablation Registry ( ICAR ), including 860 patients undergoing their first PVI for AF . Patients were grouped by CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc score (0–1, 2–4, > 5). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence within 12 months. Secondary endpoints included re‐hospitalization, major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACE ), and all‐cause mortality. Results AF recurrence occurred in 32% of patients. Recurrence rates were 25.7%, 31.4%, and 51% across the low, intermediate, and high CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc score groups, respectively. A higher score was independently associated with increased recurrence risk ( HR = 2.88; 95% CI , 1.75–4.74; p < 0.001). Elevated CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc scores also correlated with higher MACE and re‐hospitalization rates. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed. Conclusion The CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VASc score is an independent predictor of AF recurrence and adverse outcomes after PVI . Its simplicity, availability, and routine use make it a clinically useful tool to support preprocedural risk stratification in AF patients undergoing ablation.

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