Catheter Ablation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: catheter ablation vs. standard medical therapy - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines advocate for catheter ablation (CA) over standard medical therapy (SMT) for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the effectiveness of CA vs. SMT in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Embase until February 2024 were systematically searched. Given the limited number of randomized studies, propensity score-matched observational studies comparing CA with SMT in AF patients with HFpEF were also included. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight studies that enrolled 17,717 SMT and 2537 CA patients were included. CA was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85). The risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.83), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), and AF recurrence (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73) were also lower in the CA group.

CONCLUSION

CA demonstrated significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits compared to SMT in the HFpEF population.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

Efficacy and limitation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the long-term outcomes and subclinical HF after nonparoxysmal AF ablation in HFpEF patients have not been fully evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One-hundred-ninety nonparoxysmal AF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% who underwent first-time AF ablation were studied. HFpEF was diagnosed from a history of congestive HF and/or combined criteria of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration and transthoracic echocardiogram parameters, including average septal-lateral E/e' and tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity. Ninety-five patients with HFpEF (HFpEF group) were compared with 95 patients without HF (CNT group). Low voltage area (LVA) was defined as an area with a bipolar electrogram of <0.5 mV covering >5% of the total left atrial surface. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening HF. The secondary endpoint was subclinical HFpEF defined from NT-proBNP concentration and average septal-lateral E/e' or tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity at 6-12 months after the procedure irrespective of the rhythm. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the primary composite endpoint did not differ between the two groups (mean follow-up period 707 ± 75 days, log-rank p = 0.5330). However, significantly more patients in the HFpEF group reached the secondary endpoint (42 [44%] vs. 13 [14%], p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a high preablation NT-proBNP (odds ratio [OR] 1.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.001-1.002, p = 0.0040) and the existence of LVA (OR 5.983, 95% CI 1.463-31.768, p = 0.0194) independently predicted the secondary endpoint in HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSION

After nonparoxysmal AF ablation, mortality of HFpEF patients was not inferior compared to patients without coexisting HF. However, subclinical HF occasionally persisted especially in HFpEF patients with a high preprocedure NT-proBNP concentration and LVA.

Varying effect of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction according to CHA2DS2-VASc score

BACKGROUND

The impact of comorbidity burden on outcomes of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how comorbidity burden influences the association between RFCA and cardiovascular outcomes in AF patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

AF patients with HFpEF from the prospective China-AF cohort, recruited between August 2011 and December 2020, were categorized into 2 groups based CHA2DS2-VASc score: low comorbidity burden (score ≤4) and high comorbidity burden (score >4). The associations between RFCA and cardiovascular outcomes and interaction effects of comorbidity burden on these associations were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 1700 patients with median follow-up of 65.9 months, those in the low comorbidity burden group who received RFCA had a lower risk of composite events (cardiovascular death and ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack [TIA]) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.59] and all-cause death (adjusted HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.54) compared to those without RFCA. However, significant associations were not observed in the high comorbidity burden group. The differences between low and high comorbidity burden groups were significant, with interaction effects noted between comorbidity burden and RFCA for cardiovascular death (Pinteraction = 0.045) and ischemic stroke/TIA (Pinteraction = 0.010). RFCA was associated with a reduced risk of AF recurrence in both comorbidity burden groups.

CONCLUSION

RFCA for AF is associated with reduced AF recurrence and improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFpEF. However, these benefits may be limited for patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score >4 (high comorbidity burden).

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare catheter ablation and medical therapy (antiarrhythmics for rhythm or rate control) in patients with AF and HFpEF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Outcomes were the composite end points of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all-cause rehospitalization, and HF hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included 20,257 patients from 8 studies. Of those, 3 were derived from RCTs, either through post hoc analysis or subgroup analysis, and 5 were observational studies. The median follow-up ranged from 24.6 to 61.2 months. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.83; P = .001; I2 = 66%), all-cause death (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99; P = .047; I2 = 61%), cardiovascular death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P = .014; I2 = 22%), and HF hospitalization (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.82; P = .011; I2 = 87%).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Focus on the Latest Clinical Evidence

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure are two common cardiovascular conditions that frequently coexist, and it has been widely demonstrated that in patients with chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. Nevertheless, there is no unanimous consensus in the literature on how to approach this category of patients and which therapeutic strategy (rhythm control or frequency control) is the most favorable in terms of prognosis; moreover, there is still a lack of data comparing the different ablative techniques of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy, and many of the current trials do not consider current ablative techniques such as high-power short-duration ablation index protocol for radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Eventually, while several RCTs have widely proved that in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, ablation of atrial fibrillation is superior to medical therapy alone, there is no consensus regarding those with preserved ejection fraction. For these reasons, in this review, we aim to summarize the main updated evidence guiding clinical decision in this complex scenario, with a special focus on the most recent trials and the latest meta-analyses that examined the role of catheter ablation (CA) in rhythm control in patients with AF and HF.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

Prognosis of patients in end-stage heart failure with atrial fibrillation treated with ablation: Insights from CASTLE-HTx

BACKGROUND

The CASTLE-HTx trial demonstrated the benefit of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation compared with medical therapy in decreasing mortality, need for left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (HTx) in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to identify risk factors related to adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage HF and to assess the impact of ablation.

METHODS

The CASTLE-HTx protocol randomized 194 patients with end-stage HF and AF to ablation vs medical therapy. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association class ≥III, and AF burden >50% as predictors for the primary end point. The CASTLE-HTx risk score assigned weights to these risk factors. Patients with a risk score ≥3 were identified as high risk.

RESULTS

The patients were assigned to low-risk (89 [45.9%]) and high-risk (105 [54.1%]) groups. After a median follow-up of 18 months, a primary end point event occurred in 6 and 31 patients of the low- and high-risk groups (hazard ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-11.9). The incidence rate (IR) difference between ablation and medical therapy was much larger in high-risk patients (8/49 [IR, 11.4] vs 23/56 [IR, 36.1]) compared with low-risk patients (2/48 [IR, 2.6] vs 4/41 [IR, 6.3]). The IR difference for ablation was significantly higher in high-risk patients (24.69) compared with low-risk patients (3.70).

CONCLUSION

The absolute benefit of ablation is more pronounced in high-risk patients, but low-risk patients may also benefit. The CASTLE-HTx risk score identifies patients with end-stage HF who will particularly benefit from ablation.

2024 update in heart failure

In the last years, major progress has occurred in heart failure (HF) management. The 2023 ESC focused update of the 2021 HF guidelines introduced new key recommendations based on the results of the last years of science. First, two drugs, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and finerenone, a novel nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), are recommended for the prevention of HF in patients with diabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). Second, SGLT2 inhibitors are now recommended for the treatment of HF across the entire left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum. The benefits of quadruple therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are well established. Its rapid and early up-titration along with a close follow-up with frequent clinical and laboratory re-assessment after an episode of acute HF (the so-called 'high-intensity care' strategy) was associated with better outcomes in the STRONG-HF trial. Patients experiencing an episode of worsening HF might require a fifth drug, vericiguat. In the STEP-HFpEF-DM and STEP-HFpEF trials, semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly administered for 1 year decreased body weight and significantly improved quality of life and the 6 min walk distance in obese patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with or without a history of diabetes. Further data on safety and efficacy, including also hard endpoints, are needed to support the addition of acetazolamide or hydrochlorothiazide to a standard diuretic regimen in patients hospitalized due to acute HF. In the meantime, PUSH-AHF supported the use of natriuresis-guided diuretic therapy. Further options and most recent evidence for the treatment of HF, including specific drugs for cardiomyopathies (i.e., mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and tafamidis in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis), device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, with the recent finding from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal trial, are also reviewed in this article.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Pre-procedural Stratification by the Endothelial Function in Patients with Heart Failure Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

BACKGROUND

Endothelial dysfunction (ED), a well-established risk marker of cardiovascular events, is associated with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Its relationship with cardiovascular events in patients with HF undergoing AF ablation remains unclear. We aimed to elucidate the association between ED and the outcomes after AF ablation in patients with HF.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included patients with HF who underwent an endothelial function assessment using the peripheral vascular reactive hyperemia index (RHI) before first-time AF ablation. We defined AF recurrence according to the following types: the conventional form (AF≥30 seconds) and persistent form (requiring cardioversion). An RHI<2.1 indicated ED. Those with and without ED were compared in terms of the 3-year incidence of AF recurrence and cardiovascular events after AF ablation.

RESULTS

Among 421 patients with HF (69 ± 9 years and 38% females), 343 (81.5%) had ED. Although the incidence of the conventional form of AF recurrence was similar between the groups, that of the persistent form was significantly higher in the ED group (25.7% vs. 15.3%, log-rank P = 0.028). The ED group also had a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events (14.8% vs. 3.6%, log-rank P = 0.028). Pre-procedural ED was identified as an independent predictor of a persistent form of AF recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-5.07, P = 0.037) and that of cardiovascular events (adjusted HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.02-17.5, P = 0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The endothelial function assessment enabled the risk stratification of clinically problematic outcomes after AF ablation in patients with HF.

Heart failure registries - Future directions

Heart failure (HF) is a growing, global public health issue. Despite advances in HF care, many challenges remain and HF outcomes are poor. Some of the major reasons for this are the lack of understanding and treatment for certain HF sub-types as well as the lack of implementation of treatment in areas where effective treatment exists. HF registries provide the opportunity to transform clinical research and patient care. Recently the registry-based randomized clinical trial has emerged as a pragmatic and inexpensive alternative to the gold standard in clinical trial design, the randomized controlled trial. Registries may also provide platforms for strategy trials, implementation trials, and screening. Using examples from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and others, the present review provides insights into how registry-based research can address many of the unmet needs in HF.

[Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation : Evidence and current techniques]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia with increasing clinical and healthcare economic relevance. A timely treatment prevents or slows the remodelling process of the atrial and ventricular myocardium initiated by AF, emphasizing its relevance especially in heart failure patients. Catheter ablation for the treatment of AF is safe and effective. The three ablation techniques currently used are comparable in terms of success rates but differ in terms of risk profile and the type of lesion formation.

Ablation for atrial fibrillation improves the outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have worse clinical outcomes than those with sinus rhythm (SR). We aim to investigate whether maintaining SR in patients with HFpEF through a strategy such as AF ablation would improve outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cohort study that analysed 1034 patients (median age 69 [63-76] years, 46.2% [478/1034] female) with HFpEF and AF. Of these, 392 patients who underwent first-time AF ablation were assigned to the ablation group, and the remaining 642 patients, who received only medical therapy, were assigned to the no ablation group. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the ablation group compared to the no ablation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82], P = 0.003) in the propensity score-matched model. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that the benefit of AF ablation was mainly driven by a reduction in rehospitalization for worsening heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.80], P = 0.003). Patients in the ablation group showed a 33% relative decrease in atrial tachycardia/AF recurrence compared to the no ablation group (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF and AF, the strategy of AF ablation to maintain SR was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure.

Left ventricular functional recovery after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in heart failure: a prediction model

AIMS

Management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant heart failure (HF) remains complex. The Antwerp score, based on four parameters [QRS >120 ms (2 points), known aetiology (2 points), paroxysmal AF (1 point), severe atrial dilation (1 point)] adequately estimated the probability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after AF ablation in a single-centre cohort. The present study aims to externally validate this prediction model in a large European multi-centre cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 605 patients (61.1 ± 9.4 years, 23.8% females, 79.8% with persistent AF) with HF and impaired LVEF (<50%) undergoing AF ablation in 8 European centres were retrospectively identified. According to the LVEF changes at 12-month echocardiography, 427 (70%) patients fulfilled the '2021 Universal Definition of HF' criteria for LVEF recovery and were defined as 'responders'. External validation of the score yielded good discrimination and calibration {area under the curve 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.89], P < .001; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .29}. Patients with a score < 2 had a 93% probability of LVEF recovery as opposed to only 24% in patients with a score > 3. Responders experienced more often positive ventricular remodelling [odds ratio (OR) 8.91, 95% CI 4.45-17.84, P < .001], fewer HF hospitalizations (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.18, P < .001) and lower mortality (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this multi-centre study, a simple four-parameter score predicted LVEF recovery after AF ablation in patients with HF and discriminated clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of the Antwerp score to standardize shared decision-making regarding AF ablation referral in future clinical studies.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: drugs or ablation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and mutually exert negative influences with important clinical implications. Although there is evidence that restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm may have favourable clinical effects in patients with HF, there is no evidence of a survival benefit with pharmacological antiarrhythmic intervention compared with a heart rate control strategy. In these patients, transcatheter ablation (CA) of AF represents a procedure with an excellent safety profile in centres with expertise and a high volume of interventions. However, in the absence of definite evidence of benefit on major clinical end-points that can be generalized to the heterogeneous population with AF and HF, the option of CA should be discussed and shared with the patient, and mainly considered in patients with conditions that are associated with a greater prospect of clinical benefit, such as 'young' age (65-70 years), good health conditions and few or no comorbidities, recent onset of HF and AF (especially if with high heart rate), left atrial volume not excessively compromised (<55 mm in diameter), and without evidence of substantial fibrotic remodelling, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >25%, including HF with preserved EF (HFpEF).