In non-severe frail octogenarians with AF taking OACs, having a low BMI was the most significant factor associated with the development of bleeding.

Background The safety and efficacy of an oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment and the difference between direct OACs (DOACs) and warfarin in nonsevere frail elderly patients with AF are unclear. Methods This was a retrospective and observational study of 354 patients over 80 years of age with nonsevere frailty who were diagnosed with AF and treated with OACs. Nonsevere frailty was defined as a clinical frailty scale score of <7. Bleeding and thromboembolic events during the OAC treatment were followed up. Results Of 354 patients enrolled, 273 (77.1%) received DOACs and 81 (22.9%) received warfarin. Of 273 patients receiving DOACs, there were 210 (76.9%) prescribed with appropriate doses of DOACs. Of 81 warfarin‐treated patients, 53 (65.4%) were prescribed an appropriate dose of warfarin. During a follow‐up of 33.1 (14.0‐51.0) months, 15 patients (1.5/100 person‐years) had bleeding events and 10 (1.0/100 person‐years) had thromboembolic events while on an OAC treatment. The incidence ratio of bleeding events in patients receiving DOACs was lower than that in those receiving warfarin (1.0/100 person‐years vs 2.9/100 person‐years, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07‐0.91, P = .036). There was no significant difference in the incidence of thromboembolic events between the DOAC and warfarin treatment groups (0.88/100 person‐years vs 1.4/100 person‐years, HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.16‐2.57, P = .52). Conclusions OACs are substantially safe and effective for preventing thromboembolic events in nonsevere frail patients over 80 years of age. Particularly, DOACs can be used more safely than warfarin.

Catheter ablation is currently an established treatment for symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). We focused on elderly patients with a high prevalence of AF and attempted to identify the clinical factors associated with unsuccessful ablation outcomes. Among 735 consecutive patients who underwent AF ablation procedures, 108 (14.7%, 66 men) aged !75 years were included. Of them, 80 had paroxysmal AF, and the remaining 28 non-paroxysmal AF. All patients underwent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and occasionally additional ablation. When AF recurred, redo ablation procedures were performed if the patient so desired. The mean number of ablation procedures was 1.1 ± 0.4 times per patient. During a mean follow-up of 38.7 ± 21.7 months, sinus rhythm was maintained in 100 patients (92.6%) without any antiarrhythmic drugs, but not in the remaining 8 (7.4%). Left atrial diameter (LAD, P < 0.001), left ventricular (LV) systolic diameter (P < 0.001), LV diastolic diameter (P = 0.001), non-PV AF foci (P = 0.036), and diabetes (P = 0.045) were associated with unsuccessful ablation procedures. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a large LAD and non-PV AF foci were significant independent predictors of AF recurrences, with odds ratios of 0.76 (P = 0.019) and 0.04 (P = 0.023), respectively. In a total of 124 procedures, one major (0.8%) and 11 minor (8.9%) complications occurred. In elderly AF patients, catheter ablation of AF is effective and safe. Non-PV AF foci and a large LAD were independent clinical predictors of unsuccessful AF ablation outcomes.

No abstract

Clinical experience with landiolol use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a severely depressed left ventricular (LV) function is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of landiolol with that of digoxin as an intravenous drug in controlling the heart rate (HR) during AF associated with a very low LV ejection fraction (LVEF).We retrospectively analyzed 53 patients treated with landiolol (n = 34) or digoxin (n = 19) for AF tachycardias with an LVEF !25. The landiolol dose was adjusted between 0.5 and 10 μg/kg/minute according to the patient's condition. The response to treatment was defined as a decrease in the HR of !110/minute, and that decreased by "20% from baseline.There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the clinical characteristics. The responder rate to landiolol at 24 hours was significantly higher than that to digoxin (71.0% versus 41.2%; odds ratio: 4.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-31.0, P = 0.048). The percent decrease in the HR from baseline at 1, 2, 12, and 24 hours was greater in the landiolol group than in the digoxin group (P < 0.01, P = 0.071, P = 0.036, and P = 0.016, respectively). The systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline within 24 hours after administering landiolol was significantly reduced, whereas digoxin did not decrease the SBP over time. Hypotension (< 80 mmHg) occurred in two patients in the landiolol group and 0 in the digoxin group (P = 0.53).Landiolol could be more effective in controlling the AF HR than digoxin even in patients with severely depressed LV function. However, careful hemodynamic monitoring is necessary when administering landiolol.