Table 1.
Atrial fibrillation ablation trials comparing patient demographics, outcomes, and safety in females and males
| Author, year | Study type, n (% F) | Age (y), F vs M | AF history (y), F vs M | Paroxysmal AF, F vs M | Follow-up (mo) | Free from AF, F vs M | Improvement in PROs | Complications, F vs M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forleo et al, 200730 | Observ, 221 (32%) | 62 vs 57 P = .002 |
5 vs 4 P = .04 |
56% vs 61% NS |
23 | 83% vs 83% NS |
Equal | 6% vs 5% NS |
| Zylla et al, 201632 | Observ, 3652 (33%) | 64 vs 59 P < .0001 |
- | 72% vs 61% P < .0001 |
12 | 50% vs 55% P = .02 |
- | 5.9% vs 3% P = .02† |
| Kloosterman et al, 202012 | RCT, 633 (33%) | 66 vs 63 P < .001 |
Women > men | 64% vs 55% P = .03 |
3 | 66% vs 72% NS |
Equal | 9% vs 6% NS‡ |
| Kuck et al, 201834 | RCT, 750 (39%) | 64 vs 57 P < .001 |
5 vs 5 NS |
100% vs 100% NS |
18 | 58% vs 65% P = .01 |
- | 16% vs 10% P = .02 |
| Cheng et al, 201941 | Meta-analysis, 151,370 (34%) | 63 vs 59 P < .001 |
6 vs 5 NS |
70% vs 63% P < .0001 |
29 | 61% vs 69% P < .0001 |
- | Women > men |
| Pak et al, 202136 | Cohort, 443 (25%) | 59 vs 58 NS |
6 vs 6 NS |
66% vs 60% NS |
31 | 59% vs 66% P = .02§ |
- | 5% vs 4% NS |
| Russo et al, 202142 | RCT, 1046 (37%) | 69 vs 67 NS |
1 vs 1 NS |
50% vs 39% P < .001 |
12 | 59% vs 66%¶ | - | 6% vs 6% NS |
| Yunus et al, 202237 | Observ, 5356 (37%) | 67 vs 63 P < .0001 |
- | 59% vs 50% P < .0001 |
- | - | - | 5% vs 4% NS |
| Wong et al, 202238 | Cohort, 116 (36%) | 63 vs 61 NS |
4 vs 5 NS |
50% vs 46% NS |
22 | 54% vs 75% P = .03 |
- | - |
Figures denote comparisons between females and males.
AF = atrial fibrillation; F = females, M = males; NS = not significant; Observ = observational; PRO = patient-reported outcomes; RCT = randomized controlled trial.
†
In-hospital.
‡
From AF procedure to 3 months after ablation.
§
Repeat AF ablations.
¶
No P value stated.