Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
 
Articles by M. R Reynolds
Total Records ( 3 ) for M. R Reynolds
  H Calkins , M. R Reynolds , P Spector , M Sondhi , Y Xu , A Martin , C. J Williams and I. Sledge
 

Background— Although radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has evolved from an experimental procedure to an important treatment option for atrial fibrillation, the relative safety and efficacy of catheter ablation relative to that of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy has not been established.

Methods and Results— Two separate systematic reviews were conducted: one on RFA and the other on AAD to provide accurate and broadly representative estimates of the clinical efficacy and safety of both therapies in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Electronic searches were conducted in EMBASE and MEDLINE from 1990 to 2007. For the RFA review, all study designs were accepted. For the AAD review, articles were limited to prospective studies on the following drugs of interest: amiodarone, dofetilide, sotalol, flecainide, and propafenone. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer, with a second reviewer performing independent confirmation of extracted data. Sixty-three RFA and 34 AAD studies were included in the reviews. Patients enrolled in RFA studies tended to be younger (mean age, 55 versus 62 years), had longer duration of atrial fibrillation (6.0 versus 3.1 years), and had failed a greater number of prior drug trials (2.6 versus 1.7). The single-procedure success rate of ablation off AAD therapy was 57% (95% CI, 50% to 64%), the multiple procedure success rate off AAD was 71% (95% CI, 65% to 77%), and the multiple procedure success rate on AAD or with unknown AAD usage was 77% (95% CI, 73% to 81%). In comparison, the success rate for AAD therapy was 52% (95% CI, 47% to 57%). A major complication of catheter ablation occurred in 4.9% of patients. Adverse events for AAD studies, although more common (30% versus 5%), were less severe.

Conclusions— Studies of RFA for treatment of atrial fibrillation report higher efficacy rates than do studies of AAD therapy and a lower rate of complications.

  M. R Reynolds , P Zimetbaum , M. E Josephson , E Ellis , T Danilov and D. J. Cohen
 

Background— Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has emerged as an important treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential cost-effectiveness of RFA for AF, relative to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, has not been fully explored from a US perspective.

Methods and Results— We constructed a Markov disease simulation model for a hypothetical cohort of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF, treated either with RFA with/without AAD or AAD alone. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were projected over 5 years. Model inputs were drawn from published clinical trial and registry data, from new registry and trial data analysis, and from data prospectively collected from patients with AF treated with RFA at our institution. We assumed no benefit from ablation on stroke, heart failure or death, but did estimate changes in quality-adjusted life expectancy using data from several AF cohorts. In the base case scenario, cumulative costs with the RFA and AAD strategies were $26 584 and $19 898, respectively. Over 5 years, quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.51 quality-adjusted life-years with RFA versus 3.38 for the AAD group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA versus AAD was thus $51 431 per quality-adjusted life-year. Model results were most sensitive to time horizon, the relative utility weights of successful ablation versus unsuccessful drug therapy, and to the cost of an ablation procedure.

Conclusions— RFA with/without AAD for symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal AF appears to be reasonably cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone from the perspective of the US health care system, based on improved quality of life and avoidance of future health care costs.

  M. R Reynolds , J Walczak , S. A White , D. J Cohen and D. J. Wilber
  Background—

In patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), catheter ablation maintains sinus rhythm more effectively than antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), but its effect on symptoms and quality of life (QOL) has not been fully characterized.

Methods and Results—

We evaluated symptoms and QOL in a multicenter, randomized trial comparing catheter ablation with AADs as second-line treatment for patients with paroxysmal AF. The Short Form (SF)-36 health survey and the AF Symptom Checklist were administered at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months after a blanking or dose-titration period. The primary between-group comparisons were conducted at 3 months because of permitted crossover from AAD to ablation beyond this time. Additional analyses based on subsequent follow-up were performed, including the construction of mixed linear regression models to assess the impact of multiple factors on follow-up QOL scores.

At baseline in both the ablation (n=103) and the AAD (n=56) groups, 7 of 8 SF-36 scales were well below population norms, as were the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) summary scores. At 3 months, the same 7 SF-36 scales were significantly (P<0.01) higher in the ablation than in the AAD group, as were the PCS (52.0±7.8 versus 47.1±10.6; P<0.01) and MCS (52.4±8.1 versus 46.6±9.8; P<0.01) scores, whereas symptom frequency (9.3±9.2 versus 19.0±12.6; P<0.001) and symptom severity (7.7±7.2 versus 16.2±10.0; P<0.001) were significantly reduced. In multivariable analysis, ablation and recurrent arrhythmias most strongly correlated with QOL changes over time.

Conclusions—

For second-line therapy of paroxysmal AF, ablation is superior to AAD treatment at improving symptoms and QOL.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00116428.

 
 
 
Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility