Comparison of Outcomes After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction

Comparing outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with systolic and diastolic heart failure

Background

The benefit of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well established; its efficacy in patients with heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear.

Objective

The objective of the study was to compare AF and heart failure (HF) rehospitalizations after PVI in patients with HFpEF vs HFrEF.

Methods

The IBM MarketScan Database was used to identify patients undergoing PVI for AF. Patients were categorized by HF status: absence of HF, presence of HFrEF, or presence of HFpEF. Primary outcomes were HF and arrhythmia hospitalizations after PVI.

Results

A total of 32,524 patients were analyzed: 27,900 with no HF (86%), 2948 with HFrEF (9%), and 1676 with HFpEF (5%). Compared with those with no HF, both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were more likely to be hospitalized for HF (hazard ratio [HR] 7.27; P < .01 for HFrEF and HR 9.46; P < .01 for HFpEF) and for AF (HR 1.17; P < .01 for HFrEF and HR 1.74; P < .01 for HFpEF) after PVI. In matched analysis, 23% of patients with HFrEF and 24% patients with HFpEF demonstrated a reduction in HF hospitalizations (P = .31) and approximately one-third demonstrated decreased arrhythmia rehospitalizations (P = .57) in the 6 months after PVI. Compared with those with HFrEF in longer-term follow-up (>1 year), patients with HFpEF were more likely to have HF (HR 1.30; P < .01) and arrhythmia (HR 1.19; P < .01) rehospitalizations.

Conclusion

Reductions in HF and arrhythmia hospitalizations are observed early after PVI across all patients with HF, but patients with HFpEF demonstrate higher HF rehospitalization and arrhythmia recurrence in longer-term follow-up than do patients with HFrEF.

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) effectively treats atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improving clinical outcomes. However, its benefits for AF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still unclear.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for studies investigating outcomes of CA in AF patients with HFpEF. Efficacy indicators included freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) free AF elimination. Safety indicators comprised total complications, HF admission, all-cause admission, and all-cause mortality. Sixteen studies with 20,796 patients included in our research.

Results

The comprehensive analysis demonstrated that, when comparing CA with medical therapy in HFpEF, no significant differences were observed in terms of HF admissions, all-cause admissions, and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.12-1.51, P = 0.19), (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.48-1.27, P = 0.31), and (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.83-1.44, P = 0.51)], while freedom from AF was significantly higher in CA (OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.99-11.54, P < 0.00001). Compared with HFrEF, CA in HFpEF showed similar rates of freedom from AF, AAD-free AF elimination, total complications, and all-cause admission were similar [(OR:0.91; 95% CI: 0.71,1.17, P =0.47), (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.50-1.86, P = 0.93), (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.47-3.41, P = 0.64), (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.73; P = 0.63)]. However, CA in HFpEF was associated with lower rates of HF admission and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.60; P = 0.0002), (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.85; P = 0.02)]. Compared with patients without HF, CA in HFpEF patients exhibited lower rates of AAD-free AF elimination (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.75; P = 0.001). However, their rates of freedom from AF and total complications were similar [(OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P = 0.06), (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.90; P = 0.38)].

Conclusion

This meta-analysis conducted provided a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CA in patients with AF and HFpEF. The results suggest that CA may represent a valuable treatment strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier (CRD42024514169).

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure With Reduced vs Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Catheter ablation is associated with reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in select patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the benefit in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate whether catheter ablation for AF is associated with reduced HF-related outcomes according to HF phenotype.

Data Source

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted among studies published from inception to September 2023.

Study Selection

Parallel-group randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with conventional rate or rhythm control therapies in patients with HF, New York Heart Association functional class II or greater, and a history of paroxysmal or persistent AF were included. Pairs of independent reviewers screened 7531 titles and abstracts, of which 12 RCTs and 4 substudies met selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Interaction P values were used to test for subgroup differences.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HF events, defined as HF hospitalization, clinically significant worsening of HF, or unscheduled visits to a clinician for treatment intensification. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs with 2465 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.7] years; 658 females [26.7%]) were included; there were 1552 participants with HFrEF and 913 participants with HFpEF. Compared with conventional rate or rhythm control, catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of HF events in HFrEF (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), while there was no benefit in patients with HFpEF (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32) (P for interaction = .03). Catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared with conventional therapies in HFrEF (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70) but a differential association was not detected in HFpEF (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) (P for interaction = .12). Similarly, no difference in the association of catheter ablation with all-cause mortality was found between HFrEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86) and HFpEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.30) groups (P for interaction = .39).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that catheter ablation for AF was associated with reduced risk of HF events in patients with HFrEF but had limited or no benefit in HFpEF. Results from ongoing trials may further elucidate the role of catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF.

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.

Catheter ablation improved ejection fraction in persistent AF patients: a DECAAF-II sub analysis

AIMS

The aim of our study was to assess differences in post-ablation atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence and burden and to quantify the change in LVEF across different congestive heart failure (CHF) subcategories of the DECAAF-II population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Differences in the primary outcome of AF recurrence between CHF and non-CHF groups was calculated. The same analysis was performed for the three subgroups of CHF and the non-CHF group. Differences in AF burden after the 3-month blanking period between CHF and non-CHF groups was calculated. Improvement in LVEF was calculated and compared across the three CHF groups. Improvement was also calculated across different fibrosis stages. There was no significant differences in AF recurrence and AF burden after catheter ablation between CHF and non-CHF patients and between different CHF subcategories. Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) experienced the greatest improvement in EF following catheter ablation (CA, 16.66% ± 11.98, P < 0.001) compared to heart failure with moderately reduced LVEF, and heart failure with preserved EF (10.74% ± 8.34 and 2.00 ± 8.34 respectively, P-value < 0.001). Moreover, improvement in LVEF was independent of the four stages of atrial fibrosis (7.71 vs. 9.53 vs. 5.72 vs. 15.88, from Stage I to Stage IV respectively, P = 0.115).

CONCLUSION

Atrial fibrillation burden and recurrence after CA is similar between non-CHF and CHF patients, independent of the type of CHF. Of all CHF groups, those with HFrEF had the largest improvement in LVEF after CA. Moreover, the improvement in ventricular function seems to be independent of atrial fibrosis in patients with persistent AF.

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

Background

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a proven alternative to pharmacologic rhythm control in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether outcomes differ in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is of interest.

Methods

Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Primary efficacy outcomes of interest include atrial arrythmia recurrence and repeat ablation. Harm outcomes of interest include all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, cardiovascular hospitalizations, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and cardiac tamponade.

Results

We included 7 observational studies comprising 2554 patients with HFpEF who underwent catheter ablation for AF. When comparing patients with HFpEF versus without HF, there was no significant difference in atrial arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-2.13), stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.03-6.54), or cardiac tamponade (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.12-12.20). When comparing patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, there was no significant difference in atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.37), repeat ablation (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.74-1.93), all-cause mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.67-1.13), all-cause hospitalizations (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.94-1.30), cardiovascular hospitalizations (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69-1.01), stroke or TIA (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.29-2.25), or cardiac tamponade (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.19-5.16).

Conclusions

Non-randomized studies suggest that catheter ablation for AF in patients with HFpEF is associated with similar arrythmia-free survival and safety profile when compared to patients with HFrEF or without heart failure.

Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Limited data are available on the outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CBA in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AF referred for CBA-based PVI from two highly experienced electrophysiology centres were included in this retrospective study. Of 651 patients undergoing CBA, 471 cases were divided into four groups: No HF (n = 255), HFpEF (n = 101), HFmrEF (n = 78), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n = 37). Similar early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was found among groups (16.2% vs. 15.4% vs. 14.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.798), and no significant difference of long-term sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance was identified among the HFmrEF, HFpEF, and No HF groups (71.8% vs. 75.2% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.334). CBA is safe for patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF with similar complications compared with the No HF group (3.8% vs. 4.0% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.814). The reassessment of cardiac function after CBA showed that patients with HF indicated beneficial outcomes. Left atrial diameter (LAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly improved in the HFmrEF group. There were 41.6% of patients in the HFpEF group who were completely relieved from HF. LAD and New York Heart Association (NYHA) were associated with recurrence in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, and the maintenance of SR was an independent predictor of NYHA improvement for all HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from CBA with high SR maintenance and significant HF improvement.

Long-Term prognosis of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with different subtypes of heart failure in the era of ablation index guidance

Background

The long-term outcomes of ablation index (AI)-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) on atrial fibrillation (AF) and different subtypes of heart failure (HF) remain unknown. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis of AI-guided RFCA procedures in patients with AF and concomitant HF.

Methods

We retrospectively included consecutive patients with AF and HF who underwent the initial RFCA procedure with AI guidance from March 2018 to June 2021 in our institution. The patients were categorized into two groups: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) group and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) +HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) group.

Results

A total of 101 patients were included. HFpEF and HFmrEF + HFrEF groups consisted of 71 (70.3%) and 30 patients (29.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 32.0 (18.2, 37.6) months, no significant difference was detected in AF recurrence between groups (21.1 vs. 33.3%) after multiple procedures, whereas the incidence of the composite endpoint of all-cause death, thromboembolic events, and HF hospitalization was significantly lower in HFpEF group (9.9 vs. 25.0%, Log-rank p = 0.018). In multivariable analysis, a history of hypertension [hazard ratio (HR) 4.667, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.433–15.203, p = 0.011], left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% (HR 5.390, 95% CI 1.911–15.203, p = 0.001) and recurrent AF after multiple procedures (HR 7.542, 95% CI 2.355–24.148, p = 0.001) were independently associated with the incidence of the composite endpoint.

Conclusion

Long-term success could be achieved in 75% of patients with AF and concomitant HF after AI-guided RFCA procedures, irrespective of different HF subtypes. Preserved LVEF was associated with a reduction in the composite endpoint compared with impaired LVEF. Patients with recurrent AF tend to have a poorer prognosis.

Safety, Efficacy and Prognostic Benefit of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Up to 65% of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) develop AF during the course of the disease. This occurrence is associated with adverse outcomes, including pump failure death. Because AF and HFpEF are mutually reinforcing risk factors, sinus rhythm restoration may represent a disease-modifying intervention. While catheter ablation exhibits acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, no randomised trials have compared AF ablation with medical management in HFpEF. However, catheter ablation has been reported to result in lower natriuretic peptides, lower filling pressures, greater peak cardiac output and improved functional capacity in HFpEF. There is growing evidence that catheter ablation may reduce HFpEF severity, hospitalisation and mortality compared to medical management. Based on indirect evidence, early catheter ablation and minimally extensive atrial injury should be favoured. Hence, individualised ablation strategies stratified by stepwise substrate inducibility provide a logical basis for catheter-based rhythm control in this heterogenous population. Randomised trials are needed for definitive evidence-based guidelines.

Long-term events following catheter-ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Data regarding prognostic events following catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are scarce. We conducted this study to compare the incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) following CA for AF between patients with HFpEF and those with systolic heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This single-centre observational study included 142 patients with HF who underwent CA for AF (median follow-up: 4.0 [2.6, 6.3] years). The patients were grouped based on the presence of HFpEF (n = 84) and systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, n = 58). We compared the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of MACE, comprising all-cause death, unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH), and HF hospitalization (HFH) between both groups and the number of HFH before and after CA in each group. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the predictors of MACE in patients with HFpEF. The incidence of MACE was comparable between the groups (following the first procedure: HFpEF: 23%, 4.7/100 person-years, vs. systolic HF: 28%, 6.6/100 person-years, P = 0.18; last procedure: 20%, 4.8/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 6.9/100 person-years, P = 0.21). Although the incidence of HFH was lower in patients with HFpEF than in those with systolic HF (first procedure: 14%, 2.9/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 5.7/100 person-years, P = 0.07; last procedure: 11%, 2.5/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 6.9/100 person-years, P = 0.01), the incidence of CVH was higher (first procedure: 8%, 1.7/100 person-years, vs. 5%, 1.2/100 person-years, P = 0.74; last procedure: 6%, 1.4/100 person-years, vs. 2%, 0.5/100 person-years, P = 0.4). The number of HFH significantly decreased in both groups after CA (HFpEF: 1 hospitalization [the first and third quartiles: 0, 1] in pre-CA, vs. 0 hospitalizations [0, 0] in post-CA, P < 0.0001; systolic HF: 1 hospitalization [0, 1], vs. 0 hospitalizations [0, 0], P < 0.005). The proportion of HFH among total clinical events was significantly smaller in patients with HFpEF than in those with systolic HF (following the first procedure: 56% vs. 88%, P < 0.005; last procedure: 52% vs. 92%, P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CA for AF could be beneficial for patients with HFpEF, similar to those with systolic HF. However, clinical events other than HFH should be considered cautiously in such patients.

Outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

Limited real-world data exist on early outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare rates of index procedural complications and 30-day readmissions after AF ablation in patients with HFpEF, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and without heart failure.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), we examined 50,299 admissions of adults with heart failure undergoing AF catheter ablation between 2010 and 2014. Using ICD-9-CM codes, we identified procedural complications and causes of readmission after AF ablation.

Results

From 2010 to 2014, the prevalence of HFpEF among patients undergoing AF ablation increased from 3.05% to 7.35% (P for trend <.001). Compared to patients without heart failure, patients with HFpEF had significantly increased procedural complications and index mortality (8.4% vs 6.2% and 0.30% vs 0.08%, respectively; P = .016 and P = .010, respectively). Index complication rates between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF were similar. All-cause 30-day readmissions occurred in 18.3% of patients with HFpEF compared to 9.5% of patients without heart failure (P <.001). Compared to no heart failure, the presence of HFpEF was independently associated with all-cause readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.96; P = .002), but not with procedural complications, cardiac readmissions, or early mortality.

Conclusion

Rates of 30-day readmissions after AF ablation are high in patients with HFpEF. However, after adjustment for age and comorbidities, complications and early mortality after AF ablation between patients with HFpEF and those without heart failure are comparable.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential of CA to benefit AF patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Hypothesis

CA may be safe and effective for patients with HFpEF.

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating CA for AF patients with HFpEF.

Results

A total of seven trials with 1696 patients were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar procedure and fluoroscopy time regarding the use of CA for patients with HFpEF and without HF (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.01–0.81, p = .05 and [WMD: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.18–0.28, p = .68]). Moreover, CA was effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with HFpEF and noninferior for patients without HF [risk ratio (RR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76–1.10, p = .34). Additionally, CA tended to significantly maintain SR (RR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.86–12.03, p = .001) and reduce rehospitalization for HF compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19–0.71, p = .003). However, no significant differences were found between two groups regarding the mortality rate (p = .59).

Conclusion

CA is a potential treatment strategy for patients with HFpEF and demonstrates equivalent efficacy to that of patients without HF. Moreover, the benefits of CA in maintaining SR and reducing rehospitalization of HF patients were significantly better than those of medical therapy. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.

A comparison of clinical outcomes following atrial fibrillation ablation for heart failure patients with preserved or reduced left ventricular function: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This review aims to determine if patients who undergo atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) do better, or worse or the same compared to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed using the search terms: "atrial fibrillation", "ablation" and terms related to HFpEF and HFrEF in order to identify studies that evaluated one or more of i) AF recurrence, ii) periprocedural complications and iii) adverse outcomes at follow up for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF who underwent AF ablation. Data was extracted from included studies and statistically pooled to evaluate adverse events and AF recurrence.

RESULTS

5 studies were included in this review and the sample size of the studies ranged from 91 to 521 patients with heart failure. There was no significant difference in the pooled rate for no AF or symptom recurrence after AF ablation comparing patients with HFpEF vs HFrEF (RR 1.07 95%CI 0.86-1.33, p = 0.15). The most common complications were access site complications/haematoma/bleeding which occurred in similar proportion in each group; HFpEF (3.1%) and HFrEF (3.1%). In terms of repeat ablations, two studies were pooled to yield a rate of 78/455 (17.1%) for HFpEF vs 24/279 (8.6%) for HFrEF (p = 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart failure patients with preserved or reduced ejection fraction have similar risk of AF or symptom recurrence after AF ablation but two studies suggest that patients with HFpEF are more likely to have repeat ablations.

Long-term prognosis of patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: comparison between heart failure subtypes based on left ventricular ejection fraction

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) prognosis has been reported similar in patients with preserved vs. reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study compared the long-term prognosis of HF patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 5010 patients undergoing RFCA in Kansai Plus AF registry, 656 patients (13.1%) with a documented history of HF were enrolled in the study before RFCA. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with reduced (<40%), mid-range (40-49%), and preserved (≥50%) LVEF were 98 (14.9%), 107 (16.3%), and 451 (68.8%) patients, respectively. The prevalence of ischaemic heart disease and cardiomyopathies was higher among patients with reduced as compared with preserved LVEF (27.6% vs. 10.0%, P < 0.05 and 36.7% vs. 15.3%, P < 0.05, respectively). The median follow-up period was 2.9 years. The 3-year cumulative risk for the primary endpoint was higher in patients with reduced LVEF (32.7%) compared to those with mid-range (11.7%) or preserved (11.6%) LVEF (P < 0.001). Reduced LVEF was the most significant independent risk factor for primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval 1.74-4.61, P < 0.001). The 3-year arrhythmia recurrence rate was similar among the groups (48.2%, 42.8%, and 47.3%, respectively, P = 0.75).

CONCLUSION 

This study raises hypothesis that patients with HFrEF and AF had approximately three times higher risk for a composite of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and stroke or systemic embolism after AF ablation compared with patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Meta-analysis of the Usefulness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. We performed a literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR; where a RR <1.0 favors the HFpEF group) and mean difference (MD; where MD <0 favors the HFpEF group) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Six studies with a total of 1,505 patients were included, of which 764 (51%) had HFpEF and 741 (49%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF 1 year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared with those with HFrEF (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.76, 1.35). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the HFpEF group (MD -5.42; 95% CI -8.51, -2.34), but there was no significant difference in procedure time (MD 1.74; 95% CI -11.89, 15.37) or periprocedural adverse events between groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54,1.32). There was no significant difference in hospitalizations between groups (MD 1.18; 95% CI 0.90, 1.55), but HFpEF patients experienced significantly less mortality (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.18, 0.94). In conclusion, based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as safe and efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF.