Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Dabigatran in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Periprocedural Anticoagulation in AF Ablation IntroductionData on the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACS) during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) are still limited. This study evaluated the periprocedural major complications (MC) of CA of AF, and compared Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban with continuous phenoprocoumon. Methods and ResultsA total of 444 patients (mean age = 65.1 9.4 years; 283 [64%] male) with paroxysmal (n = 180 [41%]), persistent (n = 256 [58%]), or longstanding-persistent AF were enrolled. CA was performed in all patients using radiofrequency energy in conjunction with a 3D-mapping system. MCs were defined according to the current guidelines. Continuous phenprocoumon-therapy was administered in 120/444 (27%) patients (group 1) and 324/444 (73%) patients were treated with NOACs (group 2; Dabigatran: n = 51 [15.7%]; Rivaroxaban: n = 193 [59.6%]; Apixaban: n = 80 [24.7%]). Procedure times were comparable between groups 1 and 2 (128.2 +/- 39.7 minutes vs. 129.7 +/- 51.2 minutes; P = 0.77). CHA(2)DS(2)-Vasc (3.0 [2.0, 4.0)] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0]; P < 0.01) and HASBLED scores (2.0 [2.0, 2.5] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 2.0]; P = 0.002) were higher in group 1 patients. The incidence of MCs in the overall group was 8/444 (2%) and was equally distributed between groups 1 and 2 (2/120 [2%] vs. 6/324 [2%], P = 0.90). The incidence of MCs was comparable between the three different NOACs. There were no significant differences between patients with and without MCs with regard to age, CHA(2)DS(2)-Vasc-score or HASBLED-score. ConclusionsThe major complication rate between all three NOACs currently available and continuous phenprocoumon during AF ablation seem to be comparable. Complication rates were similar between patients treated with the three different available NOACs.