• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Periprocedural complications and one-year outcomes after catheter ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in elderly patients: a nationwide Danish cohort study

    2021-12-16 06:23:36JesperNielsenKristianHayKragholmSofieBrixChristensenArneJohannessenChristianTorpPedersenSteenBuusKristiansenPeterKarlJacobsenPeterSteenHansenMogensStigDjurhusChristofferPolcwiartekPetergaardAnnaMargretheThgersenUffeJakob
    Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2021年11期

    Jesper Nielsen, Kristian Hay Kragholm,?, Sofie Brix Christensen, Arne Johannessen,Christian Torp-Pedersen,3, Steen Buus Kristiansen, Peter Karl Jacobsen, Peter Steen Hansen,6,Mogens Stig Djurhus, Christoffer Polcwiartek, Peter S?gaard, Anna Margrethe Th?gersen,Uffe Jakob Ortved Gang, Ole Dan J?rgensen, Filip Lyng Lindgren, Sam Riahi,0,

    1. Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark; 2. Department of Cardiology, Gentofte Hospital,Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; 3. Department of Clinical Research and Cardiology, Nordsjaellands Hospital,Hiller?d, Denmark; 4. Department of Cardiology, Skejby University Hospital, Denmark; 5. Department of Cardiology,Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; 6. M?lholm Clinic, Vejle, Denmark; 7. Department of Cardiology,Odense University hospital, Denmark; 8. Department of Cardiology, Roskilde University Hospital, Denmark; 9. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Denmark; 10. AF-Study group Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark;11. Clinical Institute, Aalborg University, Denmark

    ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES To investigate complications within 30-days following first-time ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), including a composite of cardiac tamponade, hematoma requiring intervention, stroke or death, in patients ≥ 75 years of age, compared to patients aged 65-74 years. In addition, one-year all-cause mortality and AF relapse were compared.METHODS & RESULTS All patients receiving their first catheter ablation for AF between 2012 and 2016 were identified using Danish nationwide registries. Patients aged 65-74 years served as the reference group for patients ≥ 75 years. Relapse of AF within one year was defined as cardioversion following a three-month blanking period, re-ablation or confirmed relapse within follow-up. The composite complication outcome did not differ between the two age groups, with 39/1 554 (2.8%) in patients 65-74 years of age, versus 5/199 (2.5%) in older patients (adjusted HR = 0.94), 95% CI: 0.37-2.39, P = 0.896). Patients ≥ 75 years or older had no increased hazard of death within 30 days after the procedure, with an incidence of 3/1 554 (0.2%) in younger patients and 2/199 (1.0%) in patients ≥ 75 years of age (adjusted HR = 4.71, 95% CI: 0.78-28.40, P = 0.091). There was no difference in relapse of AF after one year between age groups (≥ 75 years adjusted HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.78-1.26, P = 0.969).CONCLUSION In patients ≥ 75 years of age selected for catheter ablation for AF, the incidence of periprocedural complications, as well as one-year freedom from AF showed no statistical difference, when compared to patients 65-74 years of age.

    Pulmonary vein isolation by means of catheter ablation has become a commonly used therapy for drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF) and as a result of a steadily increase in life expectancy along with improved methods to diagnose AF, the incidence of AF is on the rise.[1]Pulmonary vein isolation has a success rate of 50%-70%after one procedure, and short-term procedural complications including death, stroke, cardiac tamponade and atrio-esophageal fistula vary from 2%-3%.[1,2]Other complications include pericardial effusion, phrenic nerve injury, pulmonary vein stenosis and vascular complications, including hematomas and pseudo-aneurisms, with complication rates ranging from < 1%-4%.[1]Regarding the treatment of elderly patients with catheter ablation, the 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation states that“In general, better rhythmoutcome and lower procedure-related complications can be expected in younger patients with a short history of AF and frequent, short AF episodes in the absence of significant structural heart disease”, and“although the evidence base is smaller for other treatment options in AF, the available data support the use of available rate and rhythm control interventions, including pacemakers and catheter ablation, without justification to discriminate by age group”.[3]However, many studies referred to in this guideline have a relatively low volume of elderly patients, as the mean age of patients included were between 52.6-66 years. The 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation stated that outcome data was needed in “high-risk populations”, including the very elderly.[4]

    In the latest 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation, AF catheter ablation is stated as it “may be an effective and safe option in selected older individuals with success rates comparable to younger patients and acceptable complication rates”.[1]This change in recommendation compared to 2016 guidelines is based on several observational studies.[5-8]Using a nationwide register-based cohort, consisting of all patients receiving their first catheter ablation procedure for AF in Denmark, the present study aimed to investigate the incidence of periprocedural complications within 30 days post-ablation. These include cardiac tamponade, hematoma requiring intervention, stroke or death and a composite endpoint of these complications in patients ≥ 75 years of age, compared to patients aged 65-74 years. In addition, one-year outcomes including AF relapse and all-cause mortality after catheter ablation were compared between the two age groups.

    METHODS

    Registries

    Data was collected from the Danish National Patient Register, the Danish National Prescription Register, the Danish Register of Causes of Death and the National Danish Ablation Register. The Danish National Patient Register has data on all patient hospital admissions and discharges with diagnosis codes since 1977, as well as outpatient and emergency room contacts since 1994. The database also includes date of admission and performed procedures coded according to the Danish version of the Nordic Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), and discharge diagnoses coded according to the ICD.[9]The Danish National Prescription Register contains data on all prescription drugs dispensed at Danish pharmacies since 1995, including date of dispensation and identification of the drug through the anatomic therapeutic chemical (ATC)classification code.[10]The Danish Register of Causes of Death contains information regarding cause and time of in-country deaths since 1970.[11]The National Danish Ablation Register contains information of catheter ablations performed in Denmark since 2010, including procedural data and complications.Since 2012, all ablation procedures performed by national ablation centers are registered in the National Danish Ablation Register. All citizens in Denmark are given a unique Civil Personal Registration (CPR) number, which are included in the databases and registries. This enables identification and exact linkage across registries.[12]

    Study Design and Patient Population

    In this retrospective nationwide cohort study, we used the Danish National Patient Register to identify all patients undergoing their first RFCA (n= 4 747)or cryoablation (n= 65) for paroxysmal, persistent and long standing AF between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2016 (n= 4 812), when coded as either BFFB (NCSP: RFCA for AF) or KFPB10 (NCSP: cryoablation for heart focus). The lower cut-off date was chosen since data collection from all ablation centers was not complete until 2012. The upper cut-off date was chosen in order to ensure a oneyear follow-up for all included patients, since the last data available in the Danish National Patient Register and the Danish Register of Causes of Death are from December 31st, 2017. To make sure that the population only consisted of patients strictly receiving RFCA or cryoablation for AF, we only included patients, if the same procedure was registered in the National Danish Ablation Register (nexcluded= 506),as the same NCSP codes are used in patients treated with ablation during heart surgery. Finally, patients younger than 65 at the time of the procedure were excluded (n= 2 553). The final study population consisted of 1 753 patients receiving either RFCA (n= 1 728) or cryoablation (n= 25). The population was divided into two groups according to age. Group 1 aged 60-74 years (n= 1 554, 88.6%),and group 2 aged ≥ 75 years (n= 199, 11.4%). Figure 1 illustrates the patient inclusion and exclusion process.

    Figure 1 Flowchart summarizing the selection process of the study population. RFCA: radiofrequency catheter ablation.

    Index was set as the date of ablation procedure.Comorbidities were identified from the Danish National Patient Register using ICD-10 codes for the following diseases: diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, ischemic heart disease (IHD), previous myocardial infarction (MI),previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft(CABG) surgery, valvular heart disease and heartfailure. For all comorbidities assessed using diagnosis codes, only conditions registered 10 years prior to the index date were assessed. As patients with DM and hypertension are most often diagnosed and treated in the primary care setting outside of hospital, we assessed relevant drug redemptions for these two conditions from the Danish National Prescription Register. For DM, we assessed any antidiabetic drug redemptions under the A10 ATC-code up to six months prior to the index date.For hypertension, we required at least two antihypertensive drug redemptions in two consecutive quarters prior to the index date. The following antihypertensive drugs were included: antiadrenergic agents, diuretics excluding loop-diuretics, vasodilators, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers,or agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system.Specific diagnosis, procedure and ATC-codes used in this study can be found in Supplementary Table 1.

    Table 1 Baseline characteristics.

    Outcomes

    We sought to investigate both periprocedural complications and death within 30 days following ablation as well as AF relapse following a threemonth blanking period and all-cause mortality within one-year post-ablation. Periprocedural complications were defined as one of the following:pericardial effusion requiring drainage or cardiac tamponade, stroke, hematoma requiring surgical treatment or death. Individual components and a composite endpoint of at least one of these complications were evaluated. All complications were investigated using discharge diagnosis codes or procedural codes from the Danish National Patient Register, and through complications registered in the National Danish Ablation Register. Death was examined through the Danish Register of Causes of Death. Using the aforementioned registries, we followed patients for one year after index procedure,investigating the primary and secondary endpoint.The primary outcome being relapse of AF, and the secondary endpoint all-cause mortality. Relapse was defined as a composite of RFCA or cryoablation ablation for AF (NCSP codes BFFP or KFPB10) after index procedure, synchronized cardioversion (NCSP code BFFA0) > 90 days after procedure or confirmed relapse at a follow-up registered in the National Danish Ablation Register, all within one year after index procedure. Re-ablation and synchronized cardioversion were investigated through the Danish National Patient Register. End of study was 365 days after index procedure. However, to accurately assess one-year follow-up visits, we expanded the definition for follow-up visits up to 15 months. It was found that 9.5% of the population did not have a follow-up performed within 365 days, and in order to minimize selection bias, a sensitivity-analysis was performed, investigating relapse as described above, but substituting confirmed relapse at a follow-up with an admission to hospital with diagnosis code I48 (AF and/or atrial flutter) being the main diagnosis. Furthermore, we investigated the use of antiarrhythmic drugs redeemed from pharmacies 90 days after index procedure and until end of study.Included were beta-blockers, verapamil, digoxin,amiodarone, dronedarone, class 1c antiarrhythmics and sotalol.

    The use of data for this study was approved by the data responsible unit in Region North Denmark(ID-number 2019-60).

    Validation of Complications in the National Danish Ablation Register

    In order to examine if procedural complications were registered correctly in the National Danish Ablation Register, 610 randomly selected patient entries were crosschecked with information from patient’s medical records and positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV)were calculated. The complications studied were:cardiac tamponade, embolism, death, deep-vein thrombosis, hematoma, heart block, infection, left ventricle stenosis, oesophageal fistula, phrenicus paresis, pneumothorax, TIA and stroke.

    Statistical Analysis

    Continuous variables are presented with median and 25%-75% percentiles (1st-3rdquartile). Categorical data are reported with percentages and frequencies. Univariate comparisons were performed using unpaired Student’sttest for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical and binary variables. Hazard of periprocedural complications were examined using cause-specific Cox regression analysis, with death being a competing risk. Due to a low number of procedural complications, the regression analysis of complications was performed unadjusted, except for death and a composite of all complications.

    One-year outcome was from index procedure until either AF relapse as defined above, death or 365 days post ablation, whichever came first. We did not record cardioversion in the first three months.In order to visualize the development of relapse after catheter ablation, a cumulative incidence plot was made. A cause-specific Cox regression was used in order to examine the association between the two age groups and relapse, with death being a competing risk. The analysis was performed both unadjusted and adjusted. We also performed unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analyses investigating one-year death.

    The following covariates were included in all adjusted analyses: sex, previous DM, CKD, hypertension, IHD, MI, stroke, PCI or CABG, valvular heart disease, heart-failure and pacemaker implantation.Proportional hazards were examined and found non-violated using Schoenfeld residuals. In a subgroup analysis, we matched patients ≥ 75 years of age from the study population 1: 2 to AF patients,who were not treated with catheter ablation, using CHA2DS2-VASc and time suffering from AF as matching criteria. In total, 25 (12.6%) cases were matched to 50 controls. Using the controls as reference group, we examined all-cause mortality 30 days post-ablation and within one year. A twosidedP-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In total, we were able to match 25(12.6%) patients with 50 controls. Using the controls as reference group, we examined all-cause mortality 30 days post-ablation and within one year. A two-sidedP-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. These specific matching criteria were chosen in order to counter selection bias,as one must assume that elderly patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF are carefully selected by physicians, since guidelines suggested an upper age limit of 75.

    All data management and analyses were done in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and Rstudio version 3.6.1 (Rstudio inc., Boston, MA,USA).

    RESULTS

    Baseline Characteristics

    We identified 1 753 patients, ≥ 65 years, receiving their first radiofrequency catheter ablation or cryoablation for AF. Patients ≥75 years accounted for 11.4% (n= 199) of the entire study population (Figure 1).Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Relative to patients aged 65-74 (n= 1 554), older patients were less frequently of male sex (52.3%vs. 61.3%,P= 0.017), and suffered more often from hypertension (84.4%vs. 76.6%,P= 0.017). Remaining factors were more evenly distributed between the two age groups (allP> 0.05, Table 1). The total number of patients ≥ 18 years of age, receiving their first catheter ablation for AF, increased with 102% between 2012 and 2016: 582 procedures in 2012, 728 in 2013,847 in 2014, 969 in 2015 and 1 180 in 2016. Patients 65-74 years of age increased with 143%: 184 procedures in 2012, 245 in 2013, 306 in 2014, 371 in 2015and 448 in 2016. Patients ≥ 75 years of age increased with 268%, with 22 procedures in 2012, 16 in 2013, 31 in 2014, 49 in 2015 and 81 in 2016. Of the 1 753 patients included in the study, 81.5% had a followup performed and registered in the National Danish Ablation Register within 15 months.

    Figure 2 Periprocedural complications.

    Table 2 Periprocedural complications within 30 days after index procedure.

    In addition, patients who had an event and/or were treated with amiodarone were excluded from the calculation of follow-up, resulting in a total of 9.5% of patients who did not have a registered follow-up or an event. Regarding the two age groups, 9.9% of the younger population and 6.5% of the older population did not have a registered follow-up or an event.

    As for ablation strategy, there was no significant difference between the two age groups. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in all patients. Complex Fractionated Atrial Electrograms ablation was only performed in 38 patients in the 65-74 age group with permanent AF. Mitral line ablation was also performed in only four patients with permanent AF in the 65-74 age group. Cavo-tricuspid line lesion was performed in 202 (14.6%) of in the 65-74age group compared to 29 (15.8%) of the patients ≥75 years of age (P= 0.73).

    There was no significant difference in median procedure time between the 65-74 age group and the patients ≥ 75 years of age (130 min [25%-75%;100-170]vs. 128 min [25%-75%; 100, 155];P= 0.48).The X-ray time was also comparable and without significant difference in the two groups (13 min[25%-75%; 8, 19]vs. 12 [25%-75%; 7, 18] min;P=0.12).

    Left atrial size values are not available in the database. However, objective grading of left atrial size (normal, moderately enlarged and severely enlarged) are inserted. Nine hundred seventy seven(64.8%) of the 65-74 age group and 129 (65.5%) of the patients ≥ 75 years of age had a normal left atria size, respectively 402 (26.7%) and 44 (22.3%) had moderately enlarged, and 129 (8.6%) of the 65-74 age group and 24 (12%) had severely enlarged left atrium (P= 0.15).

    Procedural Complications

    The frequency of procedural complications within 30 days after initial procedure is depicted in Table 2.In both age groups, a total of 2.5% experienced a complication. Using patients aged 65-74 years as reference, an unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed a non-significant HR of 1.00 and 0.94 for the older population (95% CI: 0.39-2.54,P= 0.837 and 95% CI: 0.37-2.39,P= 0.896). There were no significant differences among the groups regarding post-procedural cardiac tamponade,hematoma or stroke individually, whose complication rates ranged from 0-1.5% (allP> 0.05). The same was true regarding death within 30 days, with three (0.2%) deaths among patients aged 65-74 and two (1.0%) deaths in patients ≥75 years. The unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed a non-significant HR of 5.24 and 4.71 for the older population (95% CI: 0.88-31.37,P= 0.070 and 95% CI: 0.78-28.40,P= 0.091). Results of the unadjusted analysis are depicted as a forest plot in Figure 2.The cause of death for the five patients who died within 30 days after ablation was retrieved from patient medical records. Two died of unknown causes,one died during the procedure due to acute and fulminant heart failure following pericardiocentesis,one died of cerebral hemorrhage and one died due to septic embolism to cerebrum which we may assume was due to esophagus fistula.

    Forest plot showing the unadjusted HR of overall periprocedural complications including pericardial effusion or cardiac tamponade, stroke, hematoma requiring treatment or death, as well as 30-day allcause mortality in patients ≥ 75 years of age, relative to patients aged 65-74 years old.

    Validation of Complications in the National Danish Ablation Register

    We consistently found a high PPV (95%-99%)among the majority of the registered complications in the DARD.DK. There were three procedural or late-term complications that had PPV’s below 50%:unspecified procedural complications (PPV: 40%,95% CI: 5%-95%), cardiac tamponade (PPV: 50%,95% CI: 1%-99%) and occurrence of atrial flutter(PPV: 44%, 95% CI: 14%-79%).

    NPV values were correspondingly high (99%)among all registered complications apart from the“No registered complication” (procedural, post procedural, long-term)-variables, which had NPV as low as 17% (95% CI: 11%-24%).

    One-year Outcome

    The cumulative incidence of relapse within one year, in patients aged 65-74 years and ≥ 75 years respectively is shown in Figure 3, whereas the cumulative incidence of individual outcomes of synchronized cardioversion and re-ablation can be found in Supplementary Figures 1 and 2. When investigating the composite endpoint of AF relapse,the unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed no difference between the two age groups(HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.28,P= 0.949 and HR =1.00, 95% CI: 0.78-1.26,P= 0.969). The same held true when investigating relapse at follow-up (unadjusted HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.65-1.20,P= 0.428), synchronized cardioversion (unadjusted HR = 1.07,95% CI: 0.74-1.56,P= 0.725) and re-ablation (unadjusted HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27,P= 0.489) individually. The older age group had a higher hazard of one-year mortality in both the unadjusted and the adjusted analysis (HR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.35-7.87,P =0.008 and HR = 3.34, 95% CI: 1.37-8.14,P =0.008).Results of the adjusted analysis is depicted as a forest plots in Figure 4. A forest plot of individual outcomes can be seen in Supplementary Figure 3.

    Figure 3 Cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation relapse.

    Figure 4 The adjusted HR of one-year AF relapse and death, using patients aged 65-74 as the reference group. AF: atrial fibrillation;HR: hazard ratio.

    Cumulative relapse defined as confirmed relapse at follow-up within one year, cardioversion following a 90 days blanking period or re-ablation within one year after index procedure.

    AF relapse defined as confirmed relapse at followup within one year, cardioversion following a 90 days blanking period or re-ablation within one year after index procedure (Table 3).

    Among patients ≥ 75 years, a total of 3.5% died within one year, compared to 1.1% of patients 65-74 years of age. In total, there were 16 deaths in the younger age group, and 81.3% were due to non-cardiovascular causes. In the older age group, we observed five deaths, and 80% were due to non-cardiovascular causes. When 25 patients ≥ 75 years of age were matched 1: 2 to 50 other AF patients who were not treated with catheter ablation, using CHA2DS2-VASc and time suffering from AF as matching criteria, a Cox regression analysis investigating one-year mortality, revealed no increased hazard of death in the older age group when compared to the matched controls (HR = 0.24, 95% CI:0.03-1.90,P= 0.176). The number of patients redeeming a prescription for antiarrhythmic drugs between 90 days and 365 days after index procedure, compared to the redeemed prescriptions before the procedure, can be seen in Table 4. After the procedure, only the use of class 1c antiarrhythmic drugs differed between groups, with 88 (5.7%) patients 65-74 years of age having redeemed a prescription, compared to four (2%) of patients ≥ 75years (P= 0.045).

    Table 3 Distribution of age groups, according to one-year outcome.

    Table 4 The use of antiarrhythmics before and between 90 days and 365 days after index procedure.

    DISCUSSION

    In this nationwide study of AF patients ≥ 65 years of age undergoing first-time RFCA or cryo-balloon ablation, the incidence of periprocedural complications, as well as one-year freedom from AF showed no statistical difference, when comparing patients of ≥ 75 years of age to patients 65-74 years of age.Pulmonary vein isolation using RFCA or cryo-balloon ablation appears to be safe and as efficient for selected patients ≥ 75 years of age as for patients of 65-74 years of age.

    Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using RFCA or cryo-balloon ablation technique has been extensively examined and proved to be an effective therapy for patients with paroxysmal AF.[1]Even though the prevalence of AF increases with age, to the authors’ knowledge, all randomized studies examining the effect of ablation compared to medical therapy, have been conducted in patients below the age of 70.[2,13,14]Only few trials have examined the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of paroxysmal AF in elderly, in which many of the studies suffered from a limited population size.[7,8,15,16]

    A retrospective study by Dagres,et al.[17]from 2009 investigated 30-day procedural outcomes after RFCA for AF. They included patients treated between 2005 and 2008 and found age ≥ 75 (n= 11)to be associated with a higher risk of procedural complications deemed life-threatening, causing permanent harm, or requiring interventions or prolonged hospitalization (HR = 3.98, 95% CI: 1.21-13.01,P= 0.022). In contrast, we found no differences between age groups in the total number of procedural complications, which may be due the difference in procedure years, i.e., a decline in complications could be due to better operator experience over time and/or technical changes. Another reason could be that we used patients aged 65-74year as the reference group in contrast to the population by Dagres,et al.,[17]who had a younger study population (mean age 58 ± 10 years). The small number of patients included in the study by Dagreset al. may also explain the difference in our findings.[17]

    A more recent study by Heeger,et al.[7]from 2019 investigated the efficacy and safety of PVI using the 2ndgeneration Cryoballoon in the elderly. They included 104 patients ≥ 75 years, who were matched to 104 patients < 75 years of age. Both groups received PVI using the 2ndgeneration cryo-balloon,and Heeger,et al.[7]analyzed periprocedural complications within 30 days after procedure resulting in permanent injury or death, requiring intervention or prolonging or requiring hospitalization > 48 h.In each group, 6.7% had major complications (P=0.999). One death in the entire population was observed, belonging to the elderly patient group (P=0.124). The study concluded that cryoablation for AF in patients ≥ 75 years of age is safe, associated with short procedure and fluoroscopy times, and the long-term clinical success rate is comparable to younger patients.[7]Like our study, there were no differences in the incidence of periprocedural complications between age groups. They observed one death (1%) within the older age group, analogous to the 1.0% observed in our study. A study by Metzner,et al.[8]from 2016 investigated RFCA for AF in patients ≥ 75 years of age. They included 94 patients,and the rate of observed serious complications was 5.8% without any fatal events.

    The absolute and relative numbers of deaths observed among the elderly patients are generally low in both this study and the studies by Heeger,et al.[7]and Metzner,et al.[8](two (1.0%), one (1.0%) and zero, respectively).

    In our study, 38.8% of patients aged 65-74 and 38.7% of patients ≥ 75 years experienced relapse of AF within one year, showing no statistical difference between age groups. This percentage of relapse was to be expected, as several studies have shown similar re-occurrence of AF after one ablation procedure.[7,8,16]In the study by Metzner,et al.[8]35/93 (38%) of the patients, aged > 75 years, were free of relapse after a single RFCA procedure after a mean follow-up periode of 37 ± 20 months. Furthermore, Santangeli,et al.[18]have published a study of 103 patients ≥ 80 years treated with RFCA for AF and compared the results with 2 651 patients < 80years of age. There were no differences in safety or effectiveness between the two groups. Another single-center study has shown comparable complication rates in octogenarians (n= 49) compared to patients who were 70-79 years (n= 151) and 60-69 years (n= 177).[19]

    To best of our knowledge, our study is the first nationwide study of efficacy and safety outcomes of PVI in elderly with a follow-up period of one year including registration of the post-ablation use of anti-arrhythmic drugs.

    Our study indicates that catheter ablation of selected patients ≥ 75 years of age is as effective and safe as when treating younger patients of 65-74 years of age.

    LIMITATIONS

    Being a register-based observational study, statistical associations may not be causal. Patient characteristics are limited to the data available in registries. Furthermore, register-based studies are highly dependent on the information in the registries being correct and of high quality. Due to the low number of complications in the study, one could suspect complications to be under-reported. However, as the Danish National Patient Register since the year 2000 has been used to determine funding for hospitals, it is considered to be of good quality.[7]As described above, we also found high PPV of registrations of procedural complications in the National Danish Ablation Register. The population in the older age group consisted of 199 patients. Therefore, one could assume that the study is underpowered. However, since this is a nationwide study,there simply were not any more patients to include,and the results should be viewed as being observational. Lastly, one must assume that elderly patients referred for catheter ablation must be some of the healthier elderly, and as such, our results cannot directly be transferred to the general population of elderly patients suffering from AF.

    CONCLUSIONS

    In patients ≥ 75 years of age selected for catheter ablation for AF, the incidence of periprocedural complications as well as one-year freedom from AF showed no difference, when compared to patients 65-74 years of age, suggesting that catheter ablation for AF in selected patients of 75 years or older appear to be safe and as efficient as patients below 75 years of age.

    FUNDING

    This study was funded by Obel Family Foundation.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    Jesper Nielsen, Kristian Kragholm, Sam Riahi,Peter S?gaard, Steen B. Kristensen, Christoffer Polcwiartek, Peter Karl Jacobsen, Anna Margrethe Th?gersen and Peter Steen Hansen have no involvements that might raise the question of bias in this study. Christian Torp Petersen has received grants for studies from Byer and Novo Nordisk, not related to the current study.

    DATA AVAILABILITY

    The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to Danish legislation and Statistics Denmark regulations.

    国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 男人操女人黄网站| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 99热全是精品| 不卡av一区二区三区| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影 | 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区 | 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 满18在线观看网站| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 成年动漫av网址| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| netflix在线观看网站| 9色porny在线观看| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 不卡av一区二区三区| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 免费av中文字幕在线| 精品一区二区免费观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 在线天堂最新版资源| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 在线观看人妻少妇| 乱人伦中国视频| 飞空精品影院首页| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| av网站在线播放免费| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 国产成人精品在线电影| 91精品三级在线观看| 熟女av电影| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| av视频免费观看在线观看| 成年动漫av网址| 精品一区二区三卡| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 飞空精品影院首页| 婷婷成人精品国产| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| av在线app专区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产毛片在线视频| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲 | 国产 精品1| www日本在线高清视频| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 午夜91福利影院| 亚洲综合精品二区| 欧美日韩精品网址| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 午夜福利视频精品| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看 | 欧美激情高清一区二区三区 | av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 黄色视频不卡| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 国产成人精品无人区| a级毛片在线看网站| 中文欧美无线码| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 中文欧美无线码| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 高清av免费在线| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 免费观看av网站的网址| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| av在线观看视频网站免费| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 少妇人妻 视频| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 成人三级做爰电影| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 香蕉国产在线看| 观看av在线不卡| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 大香蕉久久网| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 五月天丁香电影| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 日日啪夜夜爽| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 日韩电影二区| 精品一区二区三卡| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 午夜日本视频在线| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 婷婷成人精品国产| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 悠悠久久av| av在线老鸭窝| 久久av网站| 亚洲成色77777| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 人人澡人人妻人| 美国免费a级毛片| 欧美日韩精品网址| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 久久这里只有精品19| 多毛熟女@视频| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 黄色 视频免费看| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产成人一区二区在线| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 亚洲精品在线美女| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 在线天堂最新版资源| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 在线 av 中文字幕| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 免费少妇av软件| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| av在线观看视频网站免费| 桃花免费在线播放| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 宅男免费午夜| 国产精品.久久久| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 多毛熟女@视频| 免费观看性生交大片5| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 丁香六月天网| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| av免费观看日本| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 免费观看性生交大片5| 欧美日韩精品网址| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91 | 91老司机精品| 久久久久精品性色| 嫩草影视91久久| 久久久欧美国产精品| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 青草久久国产| 精品午夜福利在线看| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 天天影视国产精品| 黄色视频不卡| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 天天添夜夜摸| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 日日撸夜夜添| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 秋霞伦理黄片| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 99热网站在线观看| 99久久综合免费| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 国产淫语在线视频| 九草在线视频观看| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 久久久久视频综合| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 另类精品久久| 1024香蕉在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 91国产中文字幕| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 国产成人系列免费观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 伦理电影免费视频| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 电影成人av| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 9191精品国产免费久久| 中文字幕制服av| 黄色一级大片看看| 日本午夜av视频| 免费观看性生交大片5| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 午夜av观看不卡| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 1024视频免费在线观看| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 青草久久国产| 只有这里有精品99| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 少妇人妻 视频| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆 | 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久久久精品性色| 另类精品久久| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 成人手机av| 两个人看的免费小视频| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 考比视频在线观看| 国产极品天堂在线| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 午夜日本视频在线| 黄片播放在线免费| 如何舔出高潮| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 国产精品成人在线| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 国产片内射在线| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 免费观看av网站的网址| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 一级毛片 在线播放| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 成人国产麻豆网| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 丁香六月天网| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 操出白浆在线播放| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 1024视频免费在线观看| 精品第一国产精品| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 中文欧美无线码| 嫩草影院入口| 日本欧美视频一区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| www.精华液| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产又爽黄色视频| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 国产 一区精品| 一级片'在线观看视频| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 赤兔流量卡办理| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 婷婷成人精品国产| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 国产精品一国产av| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 如何舔出高潮| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 一级毛片电影观看| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 国产av精品麻豆| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| av一本久久久久| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 黄色一级大片看看| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久久久久视频综合| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 久久性视频一级片| 99久久综合免费| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 午夜av观看不卡| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 亚洲第一青青草原| 一级毛片 在线播放| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 在线观看三级黄色| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 欧美成人午夜精品| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 久久久久久久国产电影| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 青春草国产在线视频| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产在线免费精品| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 成人国产av品久久久| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久久久精品性色| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 嫩草影院入口| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 国产av精品麻豆| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 制服诱惑二区| 午夜日本视频在线| 美国免费a级毛片| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 操美女的视频在线观看| 青春草国产在线视频| 男女之事视频高清在线观看 | 精品福利永久在线观看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 两个人看的免费小视频| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 精品第一国产精品| 一区在线观看完整版| 色播在线永久视频| 免费少妇av软件| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 久久久欧美国产精品| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 久久久久网色| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 美国免费a级毛片| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 久久人人爽人人片av| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 国产1区2区3区精品| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 国产 一区精品| 久久久精品区二区三区| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲成人手机| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产成人系列免费观看| 操出白浆在线播放| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲人成电影观看| 9热在线视频观看99| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 成人影院久久| avwww免费| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站 | 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 永久免费av网站大全| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 五月开心婷婷网| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 91精品三级在线观看| 在线观看国产h片| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 午夜久久久在线观看| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 久久久久久人妻| 99香蕉大伊视频| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产一级毛片在线| 久久性视频一级片| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲人成电影观看| 欧美日韩av久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 人妻一区二区av| 操美女的视频在线观看| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 91精品三级在线观看| 中国国产av一级| av视频免费观看在线观看| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 老司机靠b影院| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 男女边摸边吃奶| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 中文天堂在线官网| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 久久久久久久精品精品| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 女人精品久久久久毛片| www.自偷自拍.com| 操美女的视频在线观看| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| svipshipincom国产片| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 中文字幕色久视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站 | 黄色视频不卡| netflix在线观看网站| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 只有这里有精品99| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 久久这里只有精品19| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频|