Progression of permanent atrial fibrillation after atrioventricular junction ablation and dual-chamber pacemaker implantation in patients with paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias

Outcomes of Atrioventricular Node Ablation and Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: From Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to His Bundle Pacing

Objective: To review the relevant literature on the use of atrioventricular node ablation and pacing in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Methods: APubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS search was performed in order to assess the clinical outcomes of atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation, as well as the complications that may occur. Results: Several clinical trials, observational analyses and meta-analyses have shown that the "pace and ablate" strategy not only improves symptoms but also can enhance cardiac performance in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Although this procedure is effective and safe, some complications may occur including worsening of heart failure, permanent fibrillation, arrhythmias and sudden death. Regarding pacemaker implantation, cardiac resynchronization therapy is shown to be the optimal choice compared to right ventricle apical pacing. His bundle pacing is a promising alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy and has shown beneficial effects, while left bundle branch pacing is an innovative modality. Conclusions: Atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation is shown to have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation ± heart failure who do not respond or are intolerant to medical treatment. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is the treatment of choice and His bundle pacing seems to be an effective alternative way of pacing in these patients.

Evaluation of time course and predicting factors of progression of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to permanent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

To evaluate time course and predictors of progression of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) to permanent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 460 patients referred for paroxysmal (n = 337) or persistent (n = 123) AF between 1994 and 2012. Mean follow-up was 13.2 ± 6.5 years. AF progression rate was 3.7% per year, 19.7% at 5 years, and 38.1% at 10 years. Lone AF was diagnosed in 217 patients (47%). Predictors of permanent AF were: age, persistent AF, left atrial (LA) size, left ventricular-fractional shortening (LV-FS), lack of antiarrhythmic (AA) drugs, VVI pacing (P < 0.001 for all), and valvular disease (P < 0.02). Independent predictors were age (P < 0.001), persistent AF (P < 0.001), LA diameter (P < 0.005), lack of AA drugs (P < 0.005), and VVI pacing (P < 0.01). When adjusted at means of covariates, persistent AF and age >75 years remained highly significant (P < 0.01). LA dimension >50 mm was highly significant at univariate model (P < 0.001) but to a lesser extent when adjusted (P < 0.05). In patients with paroxysmal AF-with age <75 years-on AA drugs, progression rate to permanent AF was 6.5% at 5 years and 23.7% at 10 years. Among four predictors (age, LA size, LV-FS, and VVI pacing), only age (P < 0.01) and LA size (P < 0.005) remained independently significant, but LA size was not significant when adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

Progression to permanent AF is a slow process. Aging, LA size, VVI pacing, lack of AA therapy, and a persistent form of AF independently increased the progression to permanent AF.

Atrial Septal Pacing:. A New Approach to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial pacing may prevent the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) because of: (1) prevention of the relative bradycardia that triggers paroxysmal AF; (2) prevention of the bradycardia induced dispersion of refractoriness; (3)suppression or reduction of premature atrial contractions that initiate reentry and predispose to AF; (4) preservation of AV synchrony, which might prevent switch induced changes in atrial repolarization predisposing to AF. Atrial pacing locations that decrease atrial activation and dispersion of refractoriness may be preferable in patients with a history of AF. Two different interatrial septum sites have been proposed: the Bachmann's bundle and the coronary sinus ostium. The results of two prospective randomized studies indicate that septal pacing, when compared to the traditional right atrial appendage pacing, significantly reduces : (1) paroxysmal AF recurrences and burden; and (2) progression to chronic AF.

Long-term rhythm control of drug-refractory atrial fibrillation with "hybrid therapy" incorporating dual-site right atrial pacing, antiarrhythmic drugs, and right atrial ablation

We evaluated the long-term efficacy, safety, and applicability of a "hybrid" therapy strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF), incorporating dual-site right atrial pacing, antiarrhythmic drugs, and right atrial ablation. One hundred thirteen patients (paroxysmal AF [n = 70], persistent/permanent AF [n = 43]) with refractory symptomatic AF were treated with this strategy and followed for 1 to 81 months (mean 30 +/- 23). All-cause mortality, AF recurrences, and progression to permanent AF were monitored and recorded by implanted device data logs. There was no procedural mortality. Rhythm control was achieved in 90% of all patients at 3 and 5 years, with comparable efficacy in subpopulations with paroxysmal (98%), persistent, or permanent AF (87%, p >2). Overall survival was 84% at 3 years and 80% at 5 years, and was higher in patients with paroxysmal AF than in patients with persistent or permanent AF (86% vs 67% at 4 years, p <0.001). Patients with persistent or permanent AF had a greater need for cardioversion (p <0.004) and right atrial ablation (p <0.04) than patients with paroxysmal AF to achieve comparable rhythm control. A hybrid therapy strategy can provide safe and effective long-term rhythm control in patients with drug-refractory AF, and can be implemented in subpopulations presenting with paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent AF.

Total Atrioventricular Nodal Ablation Increases Atrial Fibrillation Burden in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Despite Continuation of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Total atrioventricular nodal (TAVN) ablation and pacing is an accepted and safe treatment for patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Many patients develop permanent AF within the first 6 months after TAVN ablation. This usually is ascribed to the cessation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy. We hypothesized that TAVN ablation itself creates an atrial substrate prone to AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients participating in the Atrial Pacing Periablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PA3) study who remained on stable antiarrhythmic drug therapy throughout follow-up were included in this analysis. AF burden and the development of persistent AF in the preablation period were compared to two consecutive postablation periods. Echocardiographic changes also were evaluated. Twenty-two patients remained on stable drug therapy (9 men and 13 women, age 59 +/- 3 years). One patient developed persistent AF preablation compared to 10 postablation (P < 0.05). AF burden preablation was 3.0 +/- 1.2 hours/day and increased to 10.4 +/- 2.2 hours/day and 11.8 +/- 2.3 hours/day in the two postablation follow-up periods (P < 0.05). In patients with fractional shortening (FS) >30% prior to ablation, FS decreased significantly from 39.4% +/- 1.3% to 36.4%+/- 1.7% (P < 0.05). In contrast, in patients with a FS < or =30% prior to ablation, FS increased from 27% +/- 0.8% to 33.6 +/- 1.7% (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TAVN ablation increases AF burden and facilitates the development of persistent AF in patients with paroxysmal AF despite the continuation of antiarrhythmic drugs. Loss of AV and/or interventricular synchrony may lead to altered cardiac hemodynamics resulting in atrial stretch and increasing AF burden.

New approaches to atrial fibrillation management: a critical review of a rapidly evolving field

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, the prevalence of which is increasing with the aging of the population. Because of its clinical importance and the lack of highly satisfactory management approaches, AF is the subject of active clinical and research efforts. This paper reviews recent and on-going developments in pharmacological and non-drug management of AF. The ideal therapeutic goal for AF is the production and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Comparative studies suggest that available class I and III drugs have comparable and modest efficacy for sinus rhythm maintenance. Amiodarone, with actions of all antiarrhythmic classes, has recently been shown to have clearly superior efficacy compared with other available drugs. Newer agents are in development, but their advantages are as yet unclear and appear limited. A potentially interesting approach is the prescription of drugs upon the occurrence of an attack, rather than on a continuous basis. Recent insights into AF mechanisms may permit therapy to prevent development of the AF substrate. An alternative to sinus rhythm maintenance is a rate control approach, with no attempt to prevent AF. Drugs to effect rate control include digitalis, beta-blockers and calcium channel antagonists. Digitalis has limited value for control of exercise heart rate and for paroxysmal AF, but is particularly well suited for patients with concomitant AF and congestive heart failure. AV-nodal ablation and pacing is an effective alternative for rate control but leaves the patient pacemaker dependent. The relative merits of rate versus rhythm control are being evaluated in ongoing trials, preliminary results of which indicate no statistically significant differences in primary endpoints but highlight the risks of rhythm control therapy. In patients requiring pacemakers, physiological pacing (dual chamber devices or atrial pacing) has an advantage over purely ventricular pacemakers in AF prevention. Newer pacing modalities that produce more synchronised atrial activation, as well as pacemakers that prevent excessive atrial rate swings, show promise in AF prevention and may soon see wider use. The usefulness of automatic atrial defibrillators is presently limited by discomfort during shocks. Targeted destruction of pulmonary vein foci by radiofrequency catheter ablation suppresses paroxysmal AF. Efficacy in persistent AF is lower and still under study. Problems include potential recurrence in other veins and a small but nontrivial risk of pulmonary vein stenosis. Surgical division of the atria into zones with limited electrical connection, the MAZE procedure, is highly effective in AF prevention but is a major intervention that is not applicable to most patients. In conclusion, significant advances are being made in the management of patients with AF but much more work remains to be done.

Indications and nonindications for ablation of atrioventricular conduction in the elderly: is it sensible to destroy normal tissue?

Atrial fibrillation is common in later life. The goals of therapy are maintenance/restoration of sinus rhythm and control of ventricular rate when atrial fibrillation occurs. The only nonpharmacologic therapy of proven benefit is atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing, but this approach is irreversible and requires clear guidelines for patient selection. In paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, ablation and pacing carries a high risk of progression to permanent atrial fibrillation within 6 months but is indicated only when at least two appropriate drug strategies have failed. In persistent atrial fibrillation, ablation and pacing will inevitably result in permanent atrial fibrillation; this may influence the decision for pacemaker type and the timing of the procedure. In permanent atrial fibrillation, there is clear evidence for benefit, especially in those with reduced left ventricular function. In conclusion, ablation and pacing offers symptomatic and functional benefit to patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation. Timing of the intervention relates to response to other pharmacologic therapy.

Catheter ablation of inducible atrial flutter, in combination with atrial pacing and antiarrhythmic drugs ("hybrid therapy") improves rhythm control in patients with refractory atrial fibrillation

Atrial flutter or tachycardia may coexist with atrial fibrillation [AF] and can be treated with ablation techniques in attempt to reduce the total AF burden. The role of ablation of latent atrial tachyarrhythmias elicited at electrophysiologic study in conjunction with atrial pacing and antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with refractory AF has not been evaluated. We evaluated the efficacy of catheter ablation of electrically induced atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia in improving rhythm control in patients with refractory AF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with refractory AF, and spontaneous atrial flutter (Group 1) or without spontaneous atrial flutter (Group 2) underwent programmed stimulation in a baseline drug-free state. All patients had electrically induced atrial flutter or tachycardia. Radiofrequency ablation of the arrhythmia substrate was performed in all patients. Primary endpoints evaluated for patient outcome in both groups included maintenance of rhythm control and freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients, with a mean age of 66 +/- 13 years were studied. Group 1 consisted of 22 patients while Group 2 had 21 patients. Ablation of the tricuspid valve-inferior venacaval isthmus was performed in 41 patients who had common atrial flutter induced at electrophysiologic study. Ablation of other atrial sites was performed in 8 patients with induced atypical flutter and 4 patients with induced atrial tachycardia. Ten of these patients had ablation of more than one arrhythmia. 17 patients (40%) had atrial pacing instituted and 28 patients remained on a class 1/3 antiarrhythmic drug. During a mean follow-up of 26 +/- 14 months, 33 patients (82.5%) remained in rhythm control. Actuarial analysis showed 96% of patients in rhythm control at 6 months, 94% at 12 months, and 90% at 24 months. Freedom from symptomatic AF recurrence was 64% at 6 months, 58% at 12 months, and 42% at 24 months. The outcome for both of these endpoints was similar for Group 1 and Group 2 (p = NS). The AF free interval increased significantly from 7+/- 9 days to 172 +/- 121 days (p < 0.01) after ablation. This increase was again similar in both the groups. In the 14 patients were who did not receive atrial pacing and who remained on the same class 1/3 antiarrhythmic drug, the AF free interval increased from 18 +/- 17 days to 212+/- 102 days (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that electrophysiologic studies can elicit latent atrial flutter or tachycardia in patients with refractory AF without spontaneous monomorphic atrial tachyarrhythmias. Catheter ablation of electrically induced atrial flutter or tachycardia either alone, or with atrial pacing and with antiarrhythmic drug may improve rhythm control and reduce AF recurrences. This is similar in patients with and without spontaneous atrial flutter and refractory AF.

No incremental benefit of multisite atrial pacing compared with right atrial pacing in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental antifibrillatory effect of multisite atrial pacing compared with right atrial pacing in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation paced for arrhythmia prevention alone.

METHODS

In 20 of these patients (mean (SD) age 64 (8) years; 14 female, six male), a single blinded randomised crossover study was performed to investigate the incremental benefit of one month of multisite atrial pacing compared with one month of right atrial pacing. Outcomes included the number of episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, their total duration obtained from pacemaker Holter memory, and quality of life using a cardiac specific questionnaire (the modified Karolinska questionnaire).

RESULTS

Comparing right atrial with multisite atrial pacing, there was no significant change in either the number of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes (mean (SD): right atrial pacing 77 (98) episodes v multisite pacing 52 (78) episodes, NS) or their total duration (right atrial, 4.8 (5.4) days v multisite, 6.3 (9.8) days, NS). Quality of life scores compared with baseline status were equally improved by either pacing strategy (mean percentage improvement: right atrial, 38%, p = 0.003; multisite, 44%, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in life scores comparing the two pacing modes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multisite atrial pacing has no incremental antiarrhythmic effect compared with right atrial pacing in patients paced for drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Quality of life is equally improved with either pacing strategy, with no differences between them.

Ablate and pace: palliating the symptoms?

Atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation (producing AV block) followed by pacemaker implantation is the most common nonpharmacologic treatment for patients affected by atrial fibrillation (AF) not controlled by antiarrhythmic drugs. In expert hands, the efficacy of producing complete AV block is usually >95% if a sequential right- and left-side approach is used; regression of AV block late after ablation (which requires a second procedure on a different day) occurs in <5% of cases. The clinical efficacy of ablate and pace therapy in controlling arrhythmic symptoms and improving overall quality of life is well established for patients with paroxysmal AF, although not yet for patients with persistent and permanent AF, owing to the lack of sufficient clinical studies. Ablation and pacing is clinically unsuccessful in a minority of cases. There have been little data available on long-term effects of this treatment on cardiac performance, morbidity, and survival. Although concern has arisen from some case reports, no evidence of adverse effect has ever been shown in controlled trials. Ablation and pacing does not seem to increase thromboembolic risk. We estimate that in Europe, about 396,000 patients with paroxysmal AF not controlled by drug therapy could therefore be candidates for ablate and pace therapy. Permanent forms of AF are even more frequent, but it is unknown how many are refractory to drug therapy. The recommended pacing mode is DDDR with mode switching for paroxysmal/persistent AF and VVIR for permanent AF.

Ablate and pace for drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Is ablation necessary?

BACKGROUND

Atrio-ventricular junctional ablation with pacemaker insertion has been shown to improve quality of life in patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. It is unknown whether this improvement is secondary to the ablation procedure or to the pacemaker mode utilised. To investigate this we reviewed our experience of implanting a dual chamber rate responsive pacemaker with mode switching (DDDR/MS) alone on quality of life in this patient group.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Over a 1-year period, 19 patients (mean age 62+/-9 years, 13 female) with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (mean duration of symptoms 8.7+/-7 years, failed 3.1+/-0.9 anti-arrhythmic drugs, amiodarone in 15) were recruited. Quality of life was assessed at baseline and after 1 month using a cardiac specific questionnaire, the modified Karolinska questionnaire. The mean score for all patients significantly improved by 39% at follow up (baseline 59+/-24, 1 month 36+/-24, P=0.001). Individually 15 patients (79%) had an improvement in their score, whilst for 13 patients (68%) their symptoms were sufficiently improved after pacing that ablation was not required. The benefit was maintained to a mean follow up of 12+/-5 months (score 31+/-20, P<0.001). Six patients remained symptomatic after pacing and requested further treatment. Benefit was unrelated to symptoms at baseline or the number and total duration of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes recorded on pacemaker Holter.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, DDDR/MS pacing alone can improve quality of life without concurrent atrio-ventricular junctional ablation in a significant proportion of patients.

Randomized crossover comparison of DDDR versus VDD pacing after atrioventricular junction ablation for prevention of atrial fibrillation. The atrial pacing peri-ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PA (3)) study investigators

BACKGROUND

Some clinical data suggest that atrial-based pacing prevents paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). This study tested the hypothesis that DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing prevents AF after atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were randomized to DDDR pacing (n=33) or to VDD pacing (n=34) after AV junction ablation and followed every 2 months for 6 months. Patients then crossed over to the alternate pacing mode and were followed for an additional 6 months. Primary analysis included the time to first recurrence of sustained AF (duration >5 minutes), total AF burden, and the development of permanent AF. The time to first episode of AF was similar in the DDDR group (0.37 days, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.3 days) and the VDD pacing group (0.5 days, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.7 days, P=NS). AF burden increased over time in both groups (P<0.01). At the 6-month follow-up, AF burden was 6.93 h/d (95% CI 4. 37 to 10.96 h/d) in the DDDR group and 6.30 h/d (95% CI 3.99 to 9.94 h/d) in the VDD group (P=NS). Twelve (35%) patients in the DDDR group and 11 (32%) patients in the VDD group had permanent AF within 6 months of ablation. Within 1 year of follow-up, 43% of patients had permanent AF.

CONCLUSIONS

DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing does not prevent paroxysmal AF over the long term in patients in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug therapy after total AV junction ablation. Many patients have permanent AF within the first year after ablation.

Clinical relevance of silent atrial fibrillation: prevalence, prognosis, quality of life, and management

Although first described about 100yr ago, atrial fibrillation (AF) is now recognized as the most common of all arrhythmias. It has a substantial morbidity and presents a considerable health care burden. Improved diagnosis and an ageing population with an increased likelihood of underlying cardiac disease results in AF in more than 1% of population. AF is associated with an approximately two-fold increase in mortality, largely due to stroke which occurs at an annual rate of 5-7%. Another risk to survival is heart failure, which is aggravated by poor control of the ventricular rate during AF. Usually AF is associated with a variety of symptoms: palpitations, dyspnea, chest discomfort, fatigue, dizziness, and syncope. Paroxysmal AF is likely to be symptomatic and frequently presents with specific symptoms, while permanent AF is usually associated with less specific symptoms. However, in at least one third of patients, no obvious symptoms or noticeable degradation of quality of life are observed. This asymptomatic, or silent, AF is diagnosed incidentally during routine physical examinations, pre-operative assessments or population surveys. Recently, a very large incidence of generally short paroxysms of AF has been seen in patients with implantable pacemakers or defibrillators and these arrhythmias are often silent. Pharmacological suppression of arrhythmia may be associated with a conversion from a symptomatic to an asymptomatic form of AF. Holter monitoring and transtelephonic monitoring studies have demonstrated that asymptomatic episodes of AF exceed symptomatic paroxysms by twelve-fold or more. Although symptoms may not stem directly from AF, the risk of complications is probably the same for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. AF is found incidentally in about 25% of admissions for a stroke. Studies in patients with little or no awareness of their arrhythmia condition indicate that unrecognized and untreated AF may cause congestive heart failure. In patients with coronary bypass, AF may not only represent risk for immediate postoperative morbidity and increase hospital resource utilization, but being unrecognized, may produce a significant impact on long-term survival and quality of life. Although silent AF merits consideration for anticoagulation and rate control therapy according to standard criteria, whether antiarrhythmic therapy is relevant in this condition remains unclear.