{"title":"Clinical insights into the role of bepridil in recurrence prevention after ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation","authors":"Moyuru Hirata MD, Koichi Nagashima MD, PhD, Ryuta Watanabe MD, PhD, Yuji Wakamatsu MD, PhD, Naoto Otsuka MD, PhD, Shu Hirata MD, Masanaru Sawada MD, Yuji Saito MD, Sayaka Kurokawa MD, PhD, Kenta Murotani MD, PhD, Yasuo Okumura MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.70083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The role of bepridil in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence following ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) remains uncertain, particularly in patients with severe atrial substrates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included 232 consecutive PerAF patients who underwent AF ablation between 2014 and 2019. Among them, 162 received bepridil for 3 months post-ablation (Bepridil group), while 70 received no antiarrhythmic drugs (No-AADs group). Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes were compared. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to evaluate AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence, with bepridil use treated as a time-dependent covariable.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The Bepridil group had a higher body mass index (25.1 ± 3.7 vs. 23.8 ± 3.9), a higher prevalence of patients with a LAD >40 mm and a LAV >50 mL (67.9% vs. 47.1%, 64.2% vs. 48.5%, respectively), and lower left atrial appendage flow velocity (37.6 ± 15.0 vs. 42.7 ± 20.5 cm/min). They more frequently underwent intracardiac atrial cardioversion (61.7% vs. 40.0%) and additional extra-pulmonary vein ablation (35.2% vs. 15.7%), but were less likely to receive balloon-based ablation (39.5% vs. 62.9%) (<i>p</i> < 0.05 for all comparison). During a median follow-up of 23.3 months, AF/AT-free survival at 2 years was comparable between the Bepridil and No-AADs groups (80.4% vs. 81.7%; <i>p</i> = 0.61). This finding remained consistent after adjusting for baseline characteristics and considering bepridil as a time-dependent covariable. No bepridil-related adverse events occurred.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Bepridil may have a limited role in preventing AF/AT recurrence in PerAF patients, particularly those with severe atrial substrates. However, its overall impact appears to be small, warranting further investigation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.70083","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.70083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The role of bepridil in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence following ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) remains uncertain, particularly in patients with severe atrial substrates.
Methods
This retrospective study included 232 consecutive PerAF patients who underwent AF ablation between 2014 and 2019. Among them, 162 received bepridil for 3 months post-ablation (Bepridil group), while 70 received no antiarrhythmic drugs (No-AADs group). Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes were compared. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to evaluate AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence, with bepridil use treated as a time-dependent covariable.
Results
The Bepridil group had a higher body mass index (25.1 ± 3.7 vs. 23.8 ± 3.9), a higher prevalence of patients with a LAD >40 mm and a LAV >50 mL (67.9% vs. 47.1%, 64.2% vs. 48.5%, respectively), and lower left atrial appendage flow velocity (37.6 ± 15.0 vs. 42.7 ± 20.5 cm/min). They more frequently underwent intracardiac atrial cardioversion (61.7% vs. 40.0%) and additional extra-pulmonary vein ablation (35.2% vs. 15.7%), but were less likely to receive balloon-based ablation (39.5% vs. 62.9%) (p < 0.05 for all comparison). During a median follow-up of 23.3 months, AF/AT-free survival at 2 years was comparable between the Bepridil and No-AADs groups (80.4% vs. 81.7%; p = 0.61). This finding remained consistent after adjusting for baseline characteristics and considering bepridil as a time-dependent covariable. No bepridil-related adverse events occurred.
Conclusion
Bepridil may have a limited role in preventing AF/AT recurrence in PerAF patients, particularly those with severe atrial substrates. However, its overall impact appears to be small, warranting further investigation.