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

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.

Biomarkers to predict improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction after atrial fibrillation ablation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure frequently coexist. Prediction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after catheter ablation (CA) for AF remains difficult.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of biomarkers, alone and in combination with the Antwerp score, to predict LVEF recovery after CA for AF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CA for AF with depressed LVEF (<50%) were included. Plasma levels of 13 biomarkers were measured immediately before CA. Patients were categorized into "responders" and "nonresponders" in a similar fashion to the Antwerp score performance derivation and validation cohorts. The predictive power of the biomarkers alone and combined in outcome prediction was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients with depressed LVEF were included (median age 63 years; 39-19% female; median indexed left atrial volume 42 (33-52) mL/m2; median LVEF 43 (38-46)%). At a median follow-up time of 30 (20-34) months, 161 (77%) were responders and 47 (23%) were nonresponders. Of 13 biomarkers, -4-angiopoietin 2 (ANG2), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), fibroblast growth factor 23, and myosin binding protein C3-were significantly different between responders and nonresponders (P ≤ .001) and their combination could predict the end point with an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.81) overall, 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.78) in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-0.98) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only ANG2 and GDF15 remained significantly associated with LVEF recovery after adjustment for age, sex, and Antwerp score and significantly improved the accuracy of the Antwerp score predictions (P < .001). The area under the curve of the Antwerp score in the outcome prediction improved from 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.83) to 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86).

CONCLUSION

A biomarker panel (ANG2 and GDF15) significantly improved the accuracy of the Antwerp score.

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

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

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

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

Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of 2023, numerous key clinical trials with valuable contributions to clinical cardiology were published or presented at major international conferences. This review seeks to summarise these trials and reflect on their clinical context.

METHODS

The authors collated and reviewed clinical trials presented at major cardiology conferences during 2023 including the American College of Cardiology (ACC), European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), American Heart Association (AHA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), TVT-The Heart Summit (TVT) and Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT). Trials with a broad relevance to the cardiology community and those with potential to change current practice were included.

RESULTS

A total of 80 key cardiology clinical trials were identified for inclusion. Key trials in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and antiplatelet management such as HOST-IDEA, T-PASS and STOP-DAPT3 were included in addition to several pivotal interventional trials such as ORBITA 2, MULTISTARS-AMI, ILUMIEN-IV, OCTIVUS and OCTOBER. Additionally, several trials evaluated new stent design and technology such as BIOSTEMI, PARTHENOPE and TRANSFORM. Structural intervention trials included long-term data from PARTNER 3, new data on the durability of transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), in addition to major new trials regarding transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention from TRISCEND II. Heart failure (HF) and prevention covered several key studies including DAPA-MI, STEP-HF, ADVOR, DICTATE HF and CAMEO-DAPA. In cardiac devices and electrophysiology, several trial exploring novel ablation strategies in atrial fibrillation (AF) such as PULSED AF and ADVENT were presented with further data evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulation in subclinical AF in NOAH-AFNET 6, FRAIL AF and AZALEA-TIMI 71.

CONCLUSION

This article presents a summary of key clinical cardiology trials published and presented during the past year and should be of interest to both practising clinicians and researchers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Definition and management of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: findings from the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

AIMS

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM) represents a subtype of acute heart failure (HF) in the context of sustained arrhythmia. Clear definitions and management recommendations for AiCM are lacking. The European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee (EHRA SIC) conducted a survey to explore the current definitions and management of patients with AiCM among European and non-European electrophysiologists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A 25-item online questionnaire was developed and distributed among EP specialists on the EHRA SIC website and on social media between 4 September and 5 October 2023. Of the 206 respondents, 16% were female and 61% were between 30 and 49 years old. Most of the respondents were EP specialists (81%) working at university hospitals (47%). While most participants (67%) agreed that AiCM should be defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) impairment after new onset of an arrhythmia, only 35% identified a specific LVEF drop to diagnose AiCM with a wide range of values (5-20% LVEF drop). Most respondents considered all available therapies: catheter ablation (93%), electrical cardioversion (83%), antiarrhythmic drugs (76%), and adjuvant HF treatment (76%). A total of 83% of respondents indicated that adjuvant HF treatment should be started at first HF diagnosis prior to antiarrhythmic treatment, and 84% agreed it should be stopped within six months after LVEF normalization. Responses for the optimal time point for the first LVEF reassessment during follow-up varied markedly (1 day-6 months after antiarrhythmic treatment).

CONCLUSION

This EHRA Survey reveals varying practices regarding AiCM among physicians, highlighting a lack of consensus and heterogenous care of these patients.

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 .

Predictors of improvement in left ventricular systolic function after catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation complicated with heart failure

AIMS

The current management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant heart failure (HF) remains a significant challenge. Catheter ablation (CA) has been shown to improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in these patients, but which patients can benefit from CA is still poorly understood. The aim of our study was to determine the predictors of improved ejection fraction in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) complicated with HF undergoing CA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 435 patients with persistent AF underwent an initial CA between January 2019 and March 2023 in our hospital. We investigated consecutive patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 50%) measured by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) within one month before CA. According to the LVEF changes at 6 months, these patients were divided into an improved group (fulfilling the '2021 Universal Definition of HF' criteria for LVEF recovery) and a nonimproved group. Eighty patients were analyzed, and the improvement group consisted of 60 patients (75.0%). In the univariate analysis, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.005) and low voltage zones in the left atrium (P = 0.043) were associated with improvement of LVEF. A receiver operating characteristic analysis determined that the suitable cutoff value for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVDd) was 59 mm (sensitivity: 85.0%, specificity: 55.0%, area under curve: 0.709). A multivariate analysis showed that LVDd (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P = 0.005) and low voltage zones (LVZs) (OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.07-0.96, P = 0.043) were significantly independently associated with the improvement of LVEF. Additionally, parameters were significantly improved regarding the left atrial diameter, LVDd and ventricular rate after radiofrequency catheter ablation (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurred in 75.0% of patients. Our study provides additional evidence that LVDd < 59 mm and no low voltage zones in the left atrium can be used to jointly predict the improvement of LVEF after atrial fibrillation ablation.