Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Patients: an Updated Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age is a relevant risk factor for the development of atrial fibrillation (AF) and is associated with increased recurrence rates in the setting of rhythm control. Catheter ablation is increasingly advocated in elderly despite conflicting data regarding its efficacy and safety in this patient cohort. Therefore, we aimed to analyse currently available evidence regarding catheter ablation for AF in patients ≥ 75 years old compared with younger patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of catheter ablation in patients ≥ 75 years old with AF. Primary efficacy and safety end points were first recurrence of atrial arrhythmia after first-time ablation and occurrence of death, stroke, or any procedure-related complication. Secondary outcomes included procedure and fluoroscopy time. RESULTS: We identified 301 potentially relevant studies, of which 39 underwent detailed analysis. A total of 19 studies (MINORS score ≥ 13) reporting on 108,419 patients (101,844 < 75 years, 6,575 ≥ 75 years of age) undergoing first-time catheter ablation for AF were included. Risk of arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation (39% vs 32%, relative risk [RR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001) and occurrence of safety end points (10.8% vs 8.5%; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53-1.76; P < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients ≥ 75 years of age than in younger patients. There was no difference concerning procedure (P = 0.33) or fluoroscopy time (P = 0.91) between younger and elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients ≥ 75 years of age, catheter ablation for AF has higher risk of arrhythmia recurrence and is associated with an increased risk of procedure-related complications and safety end point occurrence compared with younger patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".