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

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.

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.

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).

Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Management

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is highly prevalent and associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. The pathophysiology of HFpEF mostly relies on the development of elevated left ventricle filling pressure, diastolic dysfunction, and atrial dilatation and impairment. This dynamic process may eventually lead to the development of functional mitral regurgitation (MR), characterized by mitral annular dilatation and consequent leaflet remodeling, in the context of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. These observations highlight the possible common pathophysiology of MR and HFpEF. However, less is known about the prevalence and the clinical value of MR in the context of HFpEF. This review aims to provide an overview of the association and interplay between functional MR and HFpEF, discuss the underlying mechanisms that are common to these diseases, and summarize potential targeted pharmacological treatments.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. Contemporary classification of HF categorizes it into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aggregate data comparing the risk profile of AF between these three HF categories are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining any significant differences in AF-associated all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality (CV), and stroke between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until February 28, 2023. Data were combined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies comprising 248 323 patients were retained: HFrEF 123 331 (49.7%), HFmrEF 40 995 (16.5%), and HFpEF 83 997 (33.8%). Pooled baseline AF prevalence was 36% total population, 30% HFrEF, 36% HFmrEF, and 42% HFpEF. AF was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in the total population with pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.21), HFmrEF (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05-1.50) and HFpEF (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09-1.24), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.93-1.14). AF was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalizations in the total population (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14-1.46), HFmrEF (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.20-2.24), and HFpEF (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.83), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87-1.18). AF was only associated with CV in the HFpEF subcategory but was associated with stroke in all three HF subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

AF appears to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization in HFmrEF and HFpEF. With these findings, the paucity of data and treatment guidelines on AF in the HFmrEF subgroup becomes even more significant and warrant further investigations.

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 .

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: New challenges and new hopes

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem affecting millions of adults worldwide. HF with preserved ejection fraction, i.e. > 50 %, (HFpEF) accounts for more than half of all HF cases, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing with the aging of the population and the growing prevalence of metabolic disorders such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension. Diagnosis of HFpEF requires a combination of numerous echocardiographic parameters and also results of natriuretic peptide assays, to which may be added the need for a stress test. HFpEF is characterized by complex, interrelated pathophysiological mechanisms, which must be understood. This complexity probably accounts for the lack of evidence-based medicine compared with HF with reduced EF. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made recently, with a high level of evidence obtained for the SGLT2 inhibitor class on the one hand, and promising data with new drugs targeting more specifically certain mechanisms such as obesity and inflammation on the other.

Interventional Management of Atrial Fibrillation in the Chronic Heart Failure Population

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) synergistically interact to exacerbate each other. However, treatment of one entity can greatly improve management of the other. Although historically, permissive medical therapy was the mainstay of AF management in the HF population, recent data strongly favor early, often invasive, intervention for AF to reduce hard HF outcomes. It seems that intervening earlier in the time course of AF, though still not excluding persistent AF from treatment, may have more pronounced effects.

Reduced Readmission and Increased Patient Satisfaction in Post-Cardiac Arrhythmia Ablation: A Randomized Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmissions within 30 days post-cardiac arrhythmia ablation are typically related to postoperative complications and arrhythmia recurrence and considered mostly preventable.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of a cardiac ablation patient education program on hospital readmissions and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

An education intervention was established for patients who underwent cardiac ablation based on the Project RED framework. Hospital readmissions rates 30 days postprocedure and satisfaction via a single-blinded posttest design were assessed to evaluate the program.

RESULTS

Those in the intervention group had a significantly lower rate of 30-day readmissions (7.1% vs 53.3%, P = .014). A large magnitude of effect and higher total patient satisfaction scores were also seen in the intervention group ( M = 633, SD = 78) than in the control group ( M = 508, SD = 137, P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study support the implementation of an enhanced cardiac arrhythmia patient education intervention with consideration of identified facilitators and barriers.

Association between the atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence period and long-term major adverse clinical events following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Background

We previously demonstrated the clinical events in patients who underwent catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on the association between the period of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) recurrence after CA and long-term major adverse clinical events (MACE) remain unclear. In this study, we evaluated this issue in patients with systolic impairment (left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from 81 patients with systolic impairment and 83 patients with HFpEF who underwent CA for AF at our institution (median follow-up: 4.9 [3.6, 6.6] years). In each group, we compared the cumulative incidence of long-term MACE (since 1 year after CA) between patients with and without ATA recurrence at three follow-up periods (3, 6 months, and 1 year after index CA). We evaluated the period of recurrence, which was the most beneficial predictor of MACE among the periods.

Results

In the systolic impairment group, the cumulative long-term MACE incidence was significantly higher in patients with ATA recurrence than in those without it within 6 months and 1 year (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01, respectively). Recurrence within 1 year showed the highest feasibility for predicting long-term MACE (area under the curve with 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.73 [0.61-0.84]). However, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE between patients with and without recurrence in a group with HFpEF in each period.

Conclusion

ATA recurrence within 1 year could predict long-term MACE in patients with systolic impairment, but not in patients with HFpEF.

Current Knowledge of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the most common type of heart failure (HF) - predominantly in the elderly population - and the most difficult to treat. The diagnosis is based, apart from clinical data, on data provided by imaging and biochemical evaluation: left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, EF ≥50% and increase of natriuretic peptide (NP). Several phenotypes of HFpEF have been identified based on etiological and pathophysiological data. Defining the phenotypes has allowed a wider knowledge of specific pathogenic mechanisms and conducting therapeutic studies with pharmacological and non-pharmacological agents . but with uncertain results. The diagnosis is based, apart from clinical data, on data provided by imaging and biochemical evaluation: left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, EF ≥50% and increase of natriuretic peptide (NP). Several phenotypes of HFpEF have been identified based on etiological and pathophysiological data. Defining the phenotypes has allowed a wider knowledge of specific pathogenic mechanisms and conducting therapeutic studies with pharmacological and non-pharmacological agents . but with uncertain results.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Structural Heart Disease: A Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Patients with structural heart disease (SHD) are at an increased risk of developing this arrhythmia and are particularly susceptible to the deleterious hemodynamic effects it carries. In the last two decades, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a valuable strategy for rhythm control and is currently part of the standard care for symptomatic relief in patients with AF. Growing evidence suggests that CA of AF may have potential benefits that extend beyond symptoms. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of this intervention on SHD patients.

Risks of Heart Failure, Stroke, and Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation According to Heart Failure Phenotypes

BACKGROUND

The risks of heart failure (HF) events compared with stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE) or major bleeding (MB) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a large atrial fibrillation (AF) population have not been well-studied.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess HF outcomes, according to HF history and HF phenotypes (HFrEF vs HFpEF), and compare these events with SEE and MB, among patients with AF.

METHODS

We analyzed patients enrolled in the ENGAGE-AF TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in AF-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial. Cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HHF) or HF death was assessed and compared with the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB over a median follow-up of 2.8 years.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,124 (57.4%) had a history of HF (37.7% HFrEF, 40.1% HFpEF, 22.1% with unknown ejection fraction). The rate per 100 person-years (py) of HHF or HF death (4.95; 95% CI: 4.70-5.20) was higher than of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE (1.77; 95% CI: 1.63-1.92) and MB (2.66; 95% CI: 2.47-2.86) among patients with HF history. HFrEF patients experienced a higher rate of HHF or HF death compared with HFpEF patients (7.15 vs 3.65; P < 0.001), while the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB were similar by HF phenotype. Patients with HF history had a higher rate of mortality after a HHF (1.29; 95% CI: 1.17-1.42) than after a stroke/SEE (0.69; 95% CI: 0.60-0.78) or after MB (0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70). Overall, patients with nonparoxysmal AF had a higher rate of HF and stroke/SEE events regardless of HF history.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF and HF, regardless of ejection fraction, are at a higher risk of HF events with higher subsequent mortality rates than of stroke/SEE or MB. While HFrEF is associated with a higher risk of HF events than HFpEF, the risk of stroke/SEE and MB is similar between HFrEF and HFpEF.

Are arrhythmias the drivers of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? A review

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for approximately 25-30% of all-cause mortality and 40% of cardiovascular mortality in properly adjudicated large clinical trials. The mechanism of SCD in HFpEF remains unknown but thought to be driven by arrhythmic events. Apart from atrial fibrillation, which is prevalent in approximately 45% of HFpEF patients, the true burden of other cardiac arrhythmias in HFpEF remains undetermined. The incidence and risk of clinically significant advanced cardiac conduction disease with bradyarrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias remain less known. Recommendations have been made for long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and clarify mechanisms and mode of death in HFpEF patients. In animal studies, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD are significantly elevated in HFpEF animals compared with controls without heart failure. In humans, these studies are scant, with a few published small-size studies suggesting an increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in HFpEF. Higher rates of clinically significant conduction disease and cardiac pacing are seen in HFpEF compared with the general population. Excepting atrial fibrillation, the predictive effect of other arrhythmias on heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and precisely SCD remains unknown. Given the high occurrence of SCD in the HFpEF population, it could potentially become a target for therapeutic interventions if driven by arrhythmias. Studies to address these knowledge gaps are urgently warranted. In this review, we have summarized data on arrhythmias and SCD in HFpEF while highlighting avenues for future research in this area.

The predictive value of changes in left atrial volume index for rehospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Left atrial volume index (LAVI) is an adequate analysis to predicate the left ventricle (LV) filling pressures, providing a powerful predictive marker of LV diastolic dysfunction. LAVI is a dynamic morphophysiological marker, and whether LAVI changes can predicate clinical outcomes in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown.

METHODS

HFpEF patients were retrospectively studied from the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University. Patients were classified into deteriorated, stable and improved groups according to the change in LAVI. Rehospitalization was defined as the main endpoint, the composite outcome of rehospitalization or all-cause death was defined as the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 409 patients were included. In this cohort, the percentage of deteriorated, stable, and improved LAVI were 99 (24.2%), 235 (57.4%), and 75 (18.4%), respectively. During the 22 months follow-up period, 168 patients (41.1%) were rehospitalized, 31 patients (7.5%) died and 182 patients (44.5%) experienced a composite outcome. Multivariate Cox regression showed that compared to improved LAVI, those with deteriorated and stable LAVI experienced higher risk of rehospitalization. Logistic regression showed atrial fibrillation (AF) and higher creatinine were independent predictors of deteriorated LAVI, whereas the use of loop diuretics, calcium channel blockers (CCB), and high level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were significantly associated with improved LAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

Change in LAVI provides a powerful and dynamic morphophysiological marker of LV filling status and can be used to evaluate the rehospitalization in HFpEF patients.

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.

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.

Comorbidities in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common causes of hospitalization and death in industrialized countries. Demographic changes with an aging population are expected to further increase the prevalence of chronic heart failure. The associated increase in comorbidities in patients with chronic heart failure leads to a less favorable prognosis for survival. A selection of the major comorbidities discussed in this review—along with prevalence, impact on prognosis, treatment approaches, and current study status—include atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, coronary artery disease, coronary microvascular dysfunction, renal dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, reduced lymphatic reserve, and the effects on oxygen utilization and physical activity. The complex clinical picture of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging in the nearly absence of evidence-based therapy. Except for comorbidity-specific guidelines, no HFpEF-specific treatment of comorbidities can be recommended at this time. Optimized care is becoming increasingly relevant to reducing hospitalizations through a seamless inpatient and outpatient care structure. Current treatment is focused on symptom relief and management of associated comorbidities. Therefore, prevention through early minimization of risk factors currently remains the best approach.

One Year Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Contemporary Analysis of the United States Nationwide Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

Data on long-term outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in outside of clinical trials settings are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess outcomes and readmissions at 1 year following admission for CA for AF.

METHODS

Utilizing the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018), we identified patients with CA among all patients with a primary admission diagnosis of AF, and a control group by propensity score match adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores, and the hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was a composite of unplanned heart failure (HF), AF and stroke-related readmissions and death at 1 year, and secondary outcomes were hospital outcomes and all-cause readmission rates.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 29,771 patients undergoing CA and 63,988 controls. Patients undergoing CA were younger with lower CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores and less comorbidities. Over a follow-up of 170 ±1.1 days, the primary outcome occurred in 5.2% in CA group and 6.0% of controls (hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86 [0.76-0.94], p = 0.002). CA affected AF and stroke related readmission, but showed no effect on HF and mortality outcome.Male sex (HR: 0.83 [0.74-0.94], p = 0.03), younger age (HR: 0.71 [0.61-0.83], p<0.001], and lower CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (HR: 0.68 [0.55-0.84], p<0.001) were associated with lower risk of primary outcome with CA.

CONCLUSION

In this study, CA for AF was associated with significantly lower AF and stroke-related admissions, but not to HF or all cause readmission. Better outcomes were seen among males, younger patients and in patients with less comorbidities and low CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: Prime time for ablation!

Among heart failure (HF) patients, the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with a marked worsening of HF symptoms and increased morbidity and mortality. Among AF patients, 30%–40% experience at least 1 HF episode. New data suggest that, in HF patients, AF rhythm control is superior to rate control and that rhythm control by catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs. In recent years, several trials that addressed the impact of AF ablation on morbidity and mortality included HF patients; however, studies also have specifically investigated the growing cohort of patients suffering from both HF and AF. Although the majority of these trials showed a marked benefit of AF ablation, there are hints that not all HF patients benefit equally from AF ablation. AF treatment in HF is challenging because the same cardiac morbidities that lead to HF can also act as risk factors for the development of the arrhythmogenic substrate that causes AF. In many patients, this arrhythmogenic substrate can be successfully treated by antral pulmonary vein isolation pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, due to advanced atrial disease, some patients also might require multiple procedures and/or “PVI plus” ablation strategies. In this review, we summarize current data on the effect of AF ablation in HF patients, with a special focus on the beneficial effect of AF ablation in different clinical HF subgroups.

Cryoballoon Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Concomitant Heart Failure and Either Reduced or Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Results From the Cryo AF Global Registry

Background Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist; yet, outcomes of ablation in patients with AF and concomitant HF are limited. This analysis assessed outcomes of cryoablation in patients with AF and HF. Methods and Results The Cryo AF Global Registry is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients with AF who were treated with cryoballoon ablation according to routine practice at 56 sites in 26 countries. Patients with baseline New York Heart Association class I to III (HF cohort) were compared with patients without HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence ≥30 seconds, safety, and health care utilization over 12-month follow-up were analyzed. A total of 1303 patients (318 HF) were included. Patients with HF commonly had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (81.6%), were more often women (45.6% versus 33.6%) with persistent AF (25.8% versus 14.3%), and had a larger left atrial diameter (4.4±0.9 versus 4.0±0.7 cm). Serious procedure-related complications occurred in 4.1% of patients with HF and 2.6% of patients without HF (P=0.188). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was not different between cohorts with either paroxysmal AF (84.2% [95% CI, 78.6-88.4] versus 86.8% [95% CI, 84.2-89.0]) or persistent AF (69.6% [95% CI, 58.1-78.5] versus 71.8% [95% CI, 63.2-78.7]) (P=0.319). After ablation, a reduction in AF-related symptoms and antiarrhythmic drug use was observed in both cohorts (HF and no-HF), and freedom from repeat ablation was not different between cohorts. Persistent AF and HF predicted a post-ablation cardiovascular rehospitalization (P=0.032 and P=0.001, respectively). Conclusions Cryoablation to treat patients with AF is similarly effective at 12 months in patients with and without HF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02752737.

The fate of patients after failed epicardial ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

Much debate is still going on about the best ablation strategy—via endocardial or epicardial approach—in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and evidence gaps exist in current guidelines in this area. More specifically, there are no clear long-term outcome data after failed surgical AF ablation.

Methods

Since June 2008, 549 surgical AF ablation procedures through a right minithoracotomy were performed at our institution. From 2008 to 2011, a unipolar radiofrequency device was used (151 patients), whereas from 2011 to 2020 a bipolar radiofrequency device was used (398 patients). Patients were scheduled for surgery on the basis of the following criteria: recurrent episodes of paroxysmal or persistent lone AF refractory to maximally tolerated antiarrhythmic drug dosing and at least one failed cardioversion attempt. Besides the recommended follow-up by the local cardiologist, starting from 2021, surviving patients were asked to undergo assessment of left ventricular function and to complete a questionnaire addressing quality of life and predisposing factors for recurrent AF.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 77 months, the rate of AF recurrence was 20.7% (n = 114). On multivariate analysis, impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (58 patients, 51%, p = 0.002), worsening of European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) symptom class (37 patients, 32%, p = 0.003) and cognitive decline or depression (23 patients, 20%, p = 0.023) during follow-up were found to be significantly associated with AF recurrence.

Conclusions

Surgical AF ablation through a right minithoracotomy is safe, but a better outcome could be achieved using a hybrid approach. Patients after initial failed surgical AF ablation show worsening of cardiac function, clinical status and quality of life at follow-up compared to patients with successful AF ablation.