Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device

Effect of Electrophysiology Assessment on Mortality and Hospitalizations in Patients With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation

Few patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receive care by cardiac electrophysiologists. Although previous work has highlighted differential care for patients with AF treated by electrophysiologists, it is unclear whether this is associated with improved clinical outcomes. This retrospective population-level propensity score-matched cohort study included patients aged 20 to 80 years with new-onset AF presenting to an emergency department (ED) in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2012. Patients were followed until March 31, 2015. Patients who saw an electrophysiologist within 1 year of the index ED visit were matched to patients who did not see an electrophysiologist. Linked administrative databases were used for cohort construction and allow 1-year follow-up to assess for the clinical end points of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for AF, heart failure, bleeding, and stroke. A total of 5,221 unique pairs of patients were matched. One hundred seventeen patients (2.2%) in the electrophysiologist cohort underwent an AF ablation procedure during the 1-year follow-up period. All-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.1, p = 0.17) and stroke (HR = 1.4, p = 0.09) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Hospitalization for AF (HR = 1.4, p <0.001), bleeding (HR = 1.5, p = 0.0001), and congestive heart failure (HR = 1.5, p <0.0001) was increased in the group that saw an electrophysiologist. In conclusion, electrophysiologist care was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with new-onset AF.

Impact of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) promotes atrial fibrillation (AF) and AF worsens HF. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes after AF ablation in patients with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 106 consecutive HF patients, including 51 (48.1%) with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFrEF) and 55 (51.9%) with a preserved LVEF (HFpEF), underwent AF ablation. All patients underwent successful pulmonary vein antrum isolation, and substrate modification was added in 38 (35.8%). The mean follow-up period was 32.4±18.6 months, and mean number of procedures was 1.4±0.5 per patient. Low-dose antiarrhythmic drugs were combined in 29 (27.3%) patients. Freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmias (ATa), HF-related hospitalizations, and the composite endpoint (all-cause death, stroke, HF-related hospitalizations) at 3 years was 88.7%, 97.6%, and 97.6% in HFrEF patients, and 79.3%, 96.2%, and 91.8% in HFpEF patients, respectively. LVEF normalization (≥50%) was observed in 37 (72.5%) HFrEF patients post-ablation, and a smaller LV diastolic diameter (LVDd) was the sole predictor [odds ratio (OR)=0.863; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.779-0.955, p=0.005]. Shortening of the LVDd (≥5mm) was observed in 16 (29.1%) HFpEF patients post-ablation, and no recurrence after the initial procedure was the sole predictor (OR=6.229; 95% CI=1.524-25.469, p=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation of AF could be one of the important therapeutic options in the management of patients with HF combined with AF regardless of the type of HF.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Mortality and morbidity are higher among patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure than among those with heart failure alone. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation who did not have a response to antiarrhythmic drugs, had unacceptable side effects, or were unwilling to take these drugs to undergo either catheter ablation (179 patients) or medical therapy (rate or rhythm control) (184 patients) for atrial fibrillation in addition to guidelines-based therapy for heart failure. All the patients had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, and an implanted defibrillator. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 37.8 months, the primary composite end point occurred in significantly fewer patients in the ablation group than in the medical-therapy group (51 patients [28.5%] vs. 82 patients [44.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.87; P=0.007). Significantly fewer patients in the ablation group died from any cause (24 [13.4%] vs. 46 [25.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86; P=0.01), were hospitalized for worsening heart failure (37 [20.7%] vs. 66 [35.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.83; P=0.004), or died from cardiovascular causes (20 [11.2%] vs. 41 [22.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.84; P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure was associated with a significantly lower rate of a composite end point of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure than was medical therapy. (Funded by Biotronik; CASTLE-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00643188 .).

Acute and sub-acute sinus node dysfunction following pulmonary vein isolation: a case series

Six patients submitted to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation presented with long post-reversion sinus pauses between a few hours to 2 months after their procedures, causing recurrent syncope or pre-syncope. Five patients required urgent pacemaker implantation. None of these patients had previous symptoms suggestive of sick sinus syndrome (SSS) or a history of symptomatic bradycardia. Acute or sub-acute sinus node dysfunction (SND) has only recently been suggested as a potential complication of AF ablation. In three of our patients, the sinus node artery (SNA) was exclusively left-sided, running along the high anterior left atrium in close proximity to the ostia of the left and right superior pulmonary veins. In a fourth case, the SNA originated from the right coronary artery and coursed along the high anterior left atrium close to the ostium of the right superior pulmonary vein. In the remaining two cases, a pre-procedural assessment of the SNA was not possible, although a post-procedural CT scan performed in one of these did not reveal any signs of the SNA. Overdrive suppression of the sinus node exacerbated by thermal injury to the SNA may have been implicated. This was supported by (i) the lack of symptoms/signs suggestive of SSS pre-ablation, (ii) post-ablation acute/sub-acute pronounced post-AF reversion sinus pauses, and (iii) the observation that the SNA coursed along areas typically ablated during an AF ablation. Although this case series is hypothesis-generating only, we hope it will raise the awareness for the occurrence of acute/sub-acute SND as a potential complication of AF ablation.

Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

AF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist. Catheter ablation is an increasingly utilised treatment strategy for patients with AF and can be safely performed and is effective in achieving sinus rhythm for patients with HFrEF. Successful ablation may result in improved LV function, clinical heart failure status, quality of life and possibly even mortality. This review summarises the literature analysing efficacy, safety and outcomes of AF ablation for patients with HFrEF.

Percutaneous Treatment of Non-paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Paradigm Shift from Pulmonary Vein to Non-pulmonary Vein Trigger Ablation?

Pulmonary vein antrum isolation is the most effective rhythm control strategy in patients with paroxysmal AF. However, catheter ablation of non-paroxysmal AF has a lower success rate, even when persistent isolation of pulmonary veins (PVs) is achieved. As a result of arrhythmia-related electophysiological and structural changes in the atria, sites other than the PVs can harbour triggers. These non-PV triggers contribute to AF relapse. In this article, we summarise the rationale and current evidence supporting the arrhythmogenic role of non-PV triggers and our ablation approach to patients with non-paroxysmal AF.

Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Co-existing Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Time to Revisit the Management Guidelines?

AF in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is common and is associated with an increased risk of stroke, heart failure hospitalisation and all-cause mortality. Rhythm control of AF in this population has been traditionally limited to the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Clinical trials assessing superiority of pharmacological rhythm control over rate control have been largely disappointing. Catheter ablation has emerged as a viable alternative to pharmacological rhythm control in symptomatic AF and has enjoyed significant technological advancements over the past decade. Recent clinical trials have suggested that catheter ablation is superior to pharmacological interventions in patients with co-existing AF and HFrEF. In this article, we will review the therapeutic options for AF in patients with HFrEF in the context of the latest clinical trials beyond the current established guidelines.

Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathy: Prevalent, Under-recognized, Reversible

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is a clinical condition in which a persistent tachyarrhythmia or frequent ectopy contribute to ventricular dysfunction leading to systolic heart failure. AIC can be partially or completely corrected with adequate treatment of the culprit arrhythmia. Several molecular and cellular alterations by which tachyarrhythmias lead to cardiomyopathy have been identified. AIC can affect children and adults, can be clinically silent in the form of asymptomatic tachycardia with cardiomyopathy, or can present with manifest heart failure. A high index of suspicion for AIC and aggressive treatment of the culprit arrhythmia can result in resolution of heart failure symptoms and improvement in cardiac function. Recurrent arrhythmia, following recovery from the index episode, can hasten the left ventricular dysfunction and result in HF, suggesting persistent adverse remodeling despite recovery of left ventricular function. Several aspects of AIC, such as predisposing factors, early diagnosis, preventive measures to avoid adverse remodeling, and long-term prognosis, remain unclear, and need further research.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of AF ablation in patients with HFpEF vs HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 230 patients with HF who underwent AF ablation, including 97 (42.2%) with HFrEF and 133 (57.8%) with HFpEF. Outcomes included adverse events, symptoms (Mayo AF Symptom Inventory [MAFSI]), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia at 12 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 150 of 230 patients had nonparoxysmal AF (62.8% HFpEF vs 63.0% HFrEF). Patients with HFpEF had a smaller mean left atrial diameter (4.4 ± 0.8 cm vs 4.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .013) and were less likely to be taking a beta-blocker at baseline (72.9% vs 85.6%; P = .022). Median (Q1, Q3) procedure times (233 minutes [192, 290] vs 233.5 minutes [193.0, 297.5]; P = .780) and adverse events such as acute HF (3.8% vs 6.2%; P = .395) were similar between HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia was not significantly different in HFpEF vs HFrEF patients (33.9% vs 32.6%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 0.72-3.01), with similar improvements in NYHA functional class (-0.32 vs -0.19; P = .135) and MAFSI symptom severity (-0.23 vs -0.09; P = .116) after ablation.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation of AF seems to have similar effectiveness in patients with HF, regardless of presence of systolic dysfunction. There were no significant differences in procedural characteristics, arrhythmia-free recurrence, or functional improvements between patients with HFpEF and those with HFrEF.

Catheter ablation versus rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: A multicenter study

Many trials have shown improvements in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and quality of life after catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). We sought to evaluate the impact of CA on hard outcomes in a retrospective cohort study. AF patients with symptomatic HF from 3 hospitals were included. Our primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and unplanned hospitalization. In total, 90 patients underwent CA and 304 ones received rate control (RaC) were included. After a mean follow-up of 13.5 ± 5.3 months, 82.2% of patients in CA group got freedom from AF; all patients in RaC group remained in AF. CA group had a significant decreased risk of MACEs compared with RaC group (13.3% vs 29.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.82, P = .005). After propensity score matched for confounding factors, difference in MACEs remained significant between groups (13.3% vs 25.6%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.98, P = .044). Multivariate regression analysis also indicated that CA was significantly associated with a lower risk of MACEs in overall cohort (HR 0.486, 95% CI: 0.253-0.933, P = .030) and in propensity-matched cohort (HR 0.482, 95% CI: 0.235-0.985, P = .045). Besides, age and NYHA class were associated with an increased risk of MACEs. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that CA for AF in HF patients could reduce the risk of MACEs in a mid-term follow-up. Thus, CA may be a reasonable option for this population.

Atrial fibrillation ablation beyond pulmonary veins: The role of left atrial appendage

The role of pulmonary vein isolation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) is only modest. Several studies have demonstrated the role of the left atrial appendage (LAA) in initiating and maintaining of this arrhythmia. We review in this article the incremental benefit in free-arrhythmia recurrence of LAA electrical isolation in patients undergoing procedures for persistent AF or long standing persistent AF either using radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation or Lariat device implantation. Likewise, acute complications, anticoagulation and the risk of ischemic stroke after LAA electrical isolation (LAAEI) are analyzed. LAAEI in addition to standard ablation appears to have a substantial incremental benefit to achieve freedom from all atrial arrhythmias in patients with persistent AF and long standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) without increasing acute procedural complications and without raising the risk of ischemic stroke.

Effect of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation on Heart Failure Readmission Rates

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) cause numerous hospital admissions. We investigated if AF increases readmissions in patients with HF and whether AF ablation alters readmissions for HF exacerbations. The 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database was analyzed for all-cause 90-day readmissions, after discharge for HF exacerbation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare hazard rates for readmissions due to HF exacerbation, after recent ablation versus no ablation. There were 885,270 admissions for HF exacerbation of which 364,447 had coexisting AF. All-cause 90-day readmission rates were higher in patients with HF with coexisting AF versus those without AF (41.4% vs 37.6%, p <0.0001). Associated factors increasing all-cause 90-day readmissions after ablation in patients without HF were female (odds ratio [OR] 1.44, p <0.001), complication of ablation (OR 1.44, p = 0.022), coronary artery disease (OR 1.56, p <0.001), chronic lung disease (OR 1.74, p <0.001), and malnutrition (OR 10.33, p <0.001). These factors were not significant for patients with HF. HF was not a significant risk factor for complications of ablation (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.18). Patients who underwent ablation versus patients who were discharged after HF exacerbation without ablation had a lower rate and length of stay for the 90-day readmission episode, due to HF exacerbation (27.5% vs 41.4%, p <0.0001, and 5.58 days vs 6.60 days, p = 0.031, respectively). In conclusion, AF increased 90-day readmissions in patients with HF, and ablation for AF in patients with HF was associated with reduced frequency, length of stay, and readmissions without an increase in complication rates.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: a Therapeutic Challenge of Our Times

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are growing cardiovascular disease epidemics worldwide. There has been an exponential increase in the prevalence of AF and HF correlating with an increased burden of cardiac risk factors and improved survival rates in patients with structural heart disease. AF is associated with adverse prognostic outcomes in HF and is most evident in mild-to-moderate left ventricular (LV) dysfunction where the loss of "atrial kick" translates into poorer quality of life and increased mortality. In the absence of underlying structural heart disease, arrhythmia can independently contribute to the development of cardiomyopathy. Together, these 2 conditions carry a high risk of thromboembolism due to stasis, inflammation and cellular dysfunction. Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) remains a mainstay of treatment. Pharmacologic rate and rhythm control remain limited by variable efficacy, intolerance and adverse reactions. Catheter ablation for AF has resulted in a paradigm shift with evidence indicating superiority over medical therapy. While its therapeutic success is high for paroxysmal AF, it remains suboptimal in persistent AF. A better mechanistic understanding of AF as well as innovations in ablation technology may improve patient outcomes in the future. Refractory cases may benefit from atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacing. The value of risk factor modification, especially with regard to obesity, sleep apnea, hypertension and diabetes, cannot be emphasized enough. Close interdisciplinary collaboration between HF specialists and electrophysiologists is an essential component of good long-term outcomes in this challenging population.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure US Ambulatory Cardiology Practices and the Potential for Uptake of Catheter Ablation: An National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR®) Research to Practice (R2P) Project

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction frequently coexist. The AATAC (Ablation versus Amiodarone for Treatment of persistent Atrial fibrillation in patients with Congestive heart failure and an implantable device) trial suggests that catheter ablation may benefit these patients. However, applicability to contemporary ambulatory cardiology practice is unknown.

Methods and Results

Using the outpatient National Cardiovascular Data Registry^® Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry, we identified participants meeting AATAC enrollment criteria between 2013 and 2014. Treatment with medications and procedures was assessed at registry inclusion. From 164 166 patients with AF and heart failure, 8483 (7%) patients potentially met AATAC inclusion criteria. Eligible subjects, compared to AATAC trial participants, were older (mean age, 71.2±11.4 years) and had greater comorbidity (coronary artery disease 79.2%, hypertension 82.4%, and diabetes mellitus 31.8%). AF was predominantly paroxysmal (65.5%), rather than persistent/permanent (16.7%) or new onset (17.8%), whereas all patients in the AATAC trial had persistent AF. Commonly used atrioventricular‐nodal blocking agents were carvedilol (71.2%), digoxin (31.9%), and metoprolol (27.1%). Rhythm control with anti‐arrhythmic drugs was reported in 29.0% of AATAC eligible patients (predominantly amiodarone [24.6%]) and 9.3% had undergone catheter ablation. Patients who underwent ablation were more likely to be younger and have less comorbidities than those who did not.

Conclusions

Among the contemporary ambulatory AF/heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population, treatment is predominantly rate control with few catheter ablations. Application of AATAC findings has the potential to markedly increase the use of catheter ablation in this population, although significant differences in clinical profiles might influence ablation outcomes in practice.

Causes and Predictors of 30-Day Readmissions in Atrial Fibrillation (from the Nationwide Readmissions Database)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cause of arrhythmia-related hospitalizations. We assessed 30-day readmissions in patients admitted with AF in a national sample of US population. Data were extracted from Nationwide Readmissions Database for the calendar year 2013. Patients with primary discharge diagnosis of AF were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, code 427.31. Patients who died during hospitalization and those <18 years were excluded. Our primary outcome was 30-day readmission rate. Causes and independent predictors of 30-day readmissions were examined. We identified 388,340 patients admitted with AF, of whom 58,634 patients (15.1%) were readmitted within 30 days. Patients who were readmitted tended to be older and have a higher burden of co-morbidities. AF and heart failure were the main causes of 30-day readmissions in our cohort. Advanced age, female gender, and multiple co-morbidities were independently associated with 30-day readmissions. In conclusion, 15% of patients admitted for AF were readmitted within 30 days. More than 1/3 of these readmissions were for AF or heart failure.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: An Overview for Clinicians

Catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently one of the most commonly performed electrophysiology procedures. Ablation of paroxysmal AF is based on the elimination of triggers by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), while different strategies for additional AF substrate modification on top of PVI have been proposed for ablation of persistent AF. Nowadays, various technologies for AF ablation are available. The radiofrequency point-by-point ablation navigated by electro-anatomical mapping system and cryo-balloon technology are comparable in terms of the efficacy and safety of the PVI procedure. Long-term success of AF ablation including multiple procedures varies from 50 to 80%. Arrhythmia recurrences commonly occur, mostly due to PV reconnection. The recurrences are particularly common in patients with non-paroxysmal AF, dilated left atrium and the "early recurrence" of AF within the first 2-3 post-procedural months. In addition, this complex procedure can be accompanied by serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade, stroke, atrio-esophageal fistula and PV stenosis. Therefore, CA represents a second-line treatment option after a trial of antiarrhythmic drug(s). Good candidates for the procedure are relatively younger patients with symptomatic and frequent episodes of AF, with no significant structural heart disease and no significant left atrial enlargement. Randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of ablation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs in terms of improving the quality of life and symptoms in AF patients. However, nonrandomized studies reported additional clinical benefits from ablation over drug therapy in selected AF patients, such as the reduction of the mortality and stroke rates and the recovery of tachyarrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy. Future research should enable the creation of more durable ablative lesions and the selection of the optimal lesion set in each patient according to the degree of atrial remodeling. This could provide better long-term CA success and expand indications for the procedure, especially among the patients with non-paroxysmal AF.

Persistent atrial fibrillation vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: differences in management

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common human arrhythmia. AF is a progressive disease, initially being nonsustained and induced by trigger activity, and progressing towards persistent AF through alteration of the atrial myocardial substrate. Treatment of AF aims to decrease the risk of stroke and improve the quality of life, by preventing recurrences (rhythm control) or controlling the heart rate during AF (rate control). In the last 20 years, catheter-based and, less frequently, surgical and hybrid ablation techniques have proven more successful compared with drug therapy in achieving rhythm control in patients with AF. However, the efficiency of ablation techniques varies greatly, being highest in paroxysmal and lowest in long-term persistent AF. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the fundamental differences between paroxysmal and persistent AF and the potential impact of those differences on patient management, emphasizing the available therapeutic strategies to achieve rhythm control. Expert commentary: Treatment to prevent AF recurrences is suboptimal, particularly in patients with persistent AF. Emerging technologies, such as documentation of atrial fibrosis using magnetic resonance imaging and documentation of electrical substrate using advanced electrocardiographic imaging techniques are likely to provide valuable insights about patient-specific tailoring of treatments.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure - Cause or Effect?

There are emerging epidemics of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure in most developed countries, with a significant health burden. Due to many shared pathophysiological mechanisms, which facilitate the maintenance of each condition, AF and heart failure co-exist in up to 30% of patients. In the circumstance where known structural causes of heart failure (such as myocardial infarction) are absent, patients presenting with both conditions present a unique challenge, particularly as the temporal relationship of each condition can often remain elusive from the clinical history. The question of whether the AF is driving, or significantly contributing to the left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, rather than merely a consequence of heart failure, has become ever more pertinent, especially as catheter ablation now offers a significant advancement over existing rhythm control strategies. This paper will review the inter-related physiological drivers of AF and heart failure before considering the implications from the outcomes of recent clinical trials in patients with AF and heart failure.

Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Focus on Treatment Options

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is leading cardiac arrhythmia with important clinical implications. Its diagnosis is usually made on the basis on 12-lead ECG or 24-hour Holter monitoring. More and more clinical evidence supports diagnostic use of cardiac event recorders and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Treatment options in patients with atrial fibrillation are extensive and are based on chosen rhythm and/or rate control strategy. The use and selected contraindications to AF related pharmacotherapy, including anticoagulants are shown. Nonpharmacological treatments, comorbidities and risk factors control remain mainstay in the treatment of patients with AF. Electrical cardioversion consists important choice in rhythm control strategy. Much progress has been made in the field of catheter ablation and cardiac surgery methods. Left atrial appendage occlusion/closure may be beneficial in patients with AF. CIED are used with clinical benefits in both, rhythm and rate control. Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with different pacing modes have guaranteed place in the treatment of patients with AF. On the other hand, the concepts of permanent leadless cardiac pacing, atrial dyssynchrony syndrome treatment and His-bundle or para-Hisian pacing have been proposed. This review summarizes and discusses current and novel treatment options in patients with atrial fibrillation.

The burden of proof: The current state of atrial fibrillation prevention and treatment trials

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an age-related arrhythmia of enormous socioeconomic significance. In recent years, our understanding of the basic mechanisms that initiate and perpetuate AF has evolved rapidly, catheter ablation of AF has progressed from concept to reality, and recent studies suggest lifestyle modification may help prevent AF recurrence. Emerging developments in genetics, imaging, and informatics also present new opportunities for personalized care. However, considerable challenges remain. These include a paucity of studies examining AF prevention, modest efficacy of existing antiarrhythmic therapies, diverse ablation technologies and practice, and limited evidence to guide management of high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities. Studies examining the long-term effects of AF catheter ablation on morbidity and mortality outcomes are not yet completed. In many ways, further progress in the field is heavily contingent on the feasibility, capacity, and efficiency of clinical trials to incorporate the rapidly evolving knowledge base and to provide substantive evidence for novel AF therapeutic strategies. This review outlines the current state of AF prevention and treatment trials, including the foreseeable challenges, as discussed by a unique forum of clinical trialists, scientists, and regulatory representatives in a session endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society at the 12th Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, December 3-5, 2015.

Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each complicates the course and treatment of the other. Recent population-based studies have demonstrated that the 2 conditions together increase the risk of stroke, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, especially soon after the clinical onset of AF. Guideline-directed pharmacological therapy for HFrEF is important; however, although there are various treatment modalities for AF, there is no clear consensus on how best to treat AF with concomitant HFrEF. This in-depth review discusses the available data for the treatment of AF in the setting of HFrEF, focuses on areas where more investigation is necessary, examines the clinical implications of randomized and observational clinical trials, and presents suggestions for individualized treatment strategies for specific patient groups.

What Is the Appropriate Lesion Set for Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation?

OPINION STATEMENT

Special attention must be paid to detect, diagnose, and optimize management of reversible or treatable causes of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) such as obesity, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hypo or hyperthyroidism, inflammatory and infectious diseases, and stress. Though, we strongly believe that the role of the pulmonary veins (PVs) is more pronounced in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) than in persistent AF, performing an adequate pulmonary vein isolation is still key in LSPAF. Patients with LSPAF will frequently require a more aggressive mapping and ablative approach. We do not encourage the use of empiric lines or complex fractionated atrial electrograms. Ablation of sites associated with non-PV triggers such as the entire posterior wall, the roof, the anterior part of the left atrium septum, left atrial appendage (LAA), the CS and SVC has been shown to improve the freedom from AF at follow-up when combined with PVs isolation. During the isoproterenol challenge, non-PV triggers are detected in most patients with AF. Mapping non-PV triggers is guided by multiple catheters positioned along both the right and left atriums: a 10-pole circular mapping catheter in the left superior PV recording the far-field LAA activity, the ablation catheter in the right superior PV that records the far-field interatrial septum and a 20-pole catheter with electrodes spanning from the SVC to the CS. With this simple catheter setup, when focal ectopic atrial activity is observed (a single ectopic beat is enough) their activation sequence is compared to that of sinus rhythm, allowing to quickly identify their area of origin. For significant non-PV triggers (repetitive isolated beats, focal atrial tachycardias or beats triggering AF/atrial flutter, a more detailed activation mapping is performed in the area of origin. They are subsequently targeted with focal ablation, exception being the triggers originating from the SVC, LAA or CS, in which cases complete isolation of these structures is the ablation strategy of choice. We truly believe the LAA deserves special consideration when managing patients with persistent AF and LSPAF.