Long-term effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Benefit of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Patients with Different Etiologies

(1) Background: A plethora of studies have elucidated the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) for patients afflicted with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nevertheless, the literature on the benefits of CA in the specific etiological context of heart failure (HF) remains limited. This study delineates a comparative assessment of outcomes for patients with AF and reduced LVEF across the primary etiologies. (2) Methods: Our inquiry encompassed 216 patients diagnosed with congestive heart failure and an LVEF of less than 50 percent who were referred to our institution for circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) between the years 2016 and 2020. The selection criteria included a detailed medical history while excluding those suffering from valvular disease, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In an effort to scrutinize varying etiologies, patients were stratified into three categories: dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM, n = 56, 30.6%), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 68, 37.2%), and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC, n = 59, 32.2%). (3) Results: Following an average (±SD) duration of 36 ± 3 months, the prevalence of sinus rhythm was 52.1% in the DCM group, 50.0% in the ICM group, and 68.14% in the TIC group (p = 0.014). This study revealed a significant disparity between the DCM and TIC groups (p = 0.021) and the ICM and TIC groups (p = 0.007), yet no significant distinction was discerned between the TIC and ICM groups (p = 0.769). Importantly, there were no significant variations in the application of antiarrhythmic drugs or recurrence of procedures among the three groups. The mortality rates were 14.29% for the DCM group and 14.71% for the ICM group, which were higher than the 3.39% observed in the TIC group (DCM vs. TIC p = 0.035 (HR = 4.50 (95%CI 1.38-14.67)), ICM vs. TIC p = 0.021 (HR = 5.00 (95%CI 1.61-15.50))). A noteworthy enhancement in heart function was evidenced in the TIC group in comparison to the DCM and ICM groups, including a higher LVEF (p < 0.001), diminution of LV end-diastolic diameter (p < 0.001), and an enhanced New York Heart Association classification (p = 0.005). Hospitalization rates for heart failure were discernibly lower in TIC patients (0.98 (0,2) times) relative to those with DCM (1.74 (0,3) times, p < 0.01) and TIC (1.78 (0,4) times, p < 0.001). Patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and brief episodes were found to achieve superior clinical outcomes through a catheter ablation strategy. (4) Conclusion: Patients diagnosed with TIC demonstrated a more pronounced benefit from catheter ablation compared to those with DCM and ICM. This encompassed an augmented improvement in cardiac function, an enhanced maintenance of sinus rhythm, and a reduced mortality rate.

Effect of concomitant surgical atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with reduced left ventricle ejection fraction: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (RLVEF). The impact of concomitant surgical atrial fibrillation ablation (SAFA) in patients with RLVEF is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of concomitant SAFA in patients with RLVEF undergoing heart surgery on heart failure (HF) rehospitalization and mortality.

METHODS

Using a local registry and electronic health records linked with provincial civil register survival data from July 2002 to April 2019, we analyzed treatment and outcomes in a cohort of patients with AF and HF defined by left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. Health records were used to collect treatment and International Classification of Diseases (ICD 10) codes to determine outcomes. A negative binomial model was used to compare outcomes such as all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

The cohort included 682 patients with RLVEF and AF who underwent coronary artery bypass graft and/or valve surgery. A total of 196 patients (29%) underwent concomitant SAFA. After matching, 132 patients with concomitant SAFA were compared to 159 patients who did not undergo concomitant SAFA. At 6.0 ± 3.7 years of follow-up, concomitant SAFA was not associated with lower all-cause mortality (p = .9861) and reduction in rehospitalizations for heart failure decompensation (p = .31) compared to patients who did not have concomitant SAFA performed. Postoperatively, concomitant SAFA might be associated with less vasopressor and mechanical support use (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant SAFA during index cardiac surgery is safe but does not reduce mortality or rehospitalizations for HF. The effects of concomitant SAFA in the context of RLVEF need to be better studied with prospective trials.

Herzinsuffizienz und Vorhofflimmern – eine Zwillingsepidemie

Vorhofflimmern (VHF) und eine Herzinsuffizienz begünstigen sich gegenseitig und treten häufig in Kombination auf. Eine effektive Therapie des VHF inklusive der möglicherweise notwendigen Antikoagulation sollte zentraler Baustein bei Patienten mit eingeschränkter systolischer Funktion und VHF sein. Medikamentöse Therapieoptionen sind in der Regel wenig effektiv, sodass zunehmend Katheterablationsverfahren zur Behandlung dieser Patienten in den Vordergrund gestellt werden. Randomisierte Studien bei selektierten Patienten zeigen nicht nur einen symptomatischen Effekt auf die Herzinsuffizienz, sondern neben Verbesserung der LV-Funktion auch einen Letalitätsbenefit der effektiven Ablation von VHF. In der Zukunft gilt es, Patienten sinnvoll für die Katheterablation zu identifizieren. Ob das reine Vorhandensein von VHF oder eher die VHF-Last bei Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz entscheidend für die Prognose ist, wird aktuell in weiteren Studien untersucht.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure Patients

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Heart Failure (HF) are closely linked to each other, as each can be either the cause of or the result of the other. Successfully treating one of the two entities means laying the basis for treating the other one as well. Management of patients with AF and HF can be challenging and should primarily adhere to available guidelines. Concerning AF, medication is limited and causes many side effects, leading to low medical adherence. Several smaller studies, summarized in a big meta-analysis, provide evidence that ablation of AF in HF patients is crucial for improving quality of life, reducing HF hospitalizations, and reducing death, provided the LVEF is at least 25% or higher. In advanced HF, alternative treatment options (including assist devices, heart transplant) might still be the better option. Early rhythm control should be taken into consideration, as there is evidence that it is associated with better cardiovascular outcome.

Cost-Utility of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Economic Evaluation

Background Recent trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite first-line management have demonstrated a reduction in adverse outcomes. We performed an economic evaluation to estimate the cost-utility of catheter ablation as second line therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A Markov model with health states of alive, dead, and alive with amiodarone toxicity was constructed, using the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer. Patients in the alive states were at risk of HF and non-HF hospitalizations. Parameters were obtained from randomized trials and Alberta health system data for costs and outcomes. A lifetime time horizon was adopted, with discounting at 3.0% annually. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in 2018 Canadian dollars. A patient treated with catheter ablation experienced lifetime costs of $64 960 and 5.63 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), compared with $49 865 and 5.18 QALYs for medical treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35 360/QALY (95% CI, $21 518-77 419), with a 90% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY. A minimum mortality reduction of 28%, or a minimum duration of benefit of >1 to 2 years was required for catheter ablation to be attractive at this threshold. Conclusions Catheter ablation is likely to be cost-effective as a second line intervention for patients with HF with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $35 360/QALY, as long as over half of the relative mortality benefit observed in extant trials is borne out in future studies.

Managing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are increasing in prevalence worldwide. Atrial fibrillation can precipitate and can be a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and cardiomyopathy. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure, when present together, are associated with worse outcomes. Together, these 2 conditions increase the risk of stroke, requiring oral anticoagulation in many or left atrial appendage closure in some. Medical management for rate and rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure remain hampered by variable success, intolerance, and adverse effects. In multiple randomized clinical trials in recent years, catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction has shown superiority in improving survival, quality of life, and ventricular function and reducing heart failure hospitalizations compared with antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control therapies. This has resulted in a paradigm shift in management toward nonpharmacological rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The primary objective of this American Heart Association scientific statement is to review the available evidence on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation in relation to heart failure and to provide guidance on the latest advances in pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The writing committee's consensus on the implications for clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and directions for future research are highlighted.

The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Comprehensive Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines program was developed to aid clinicians in the management of these complex patients, as well as to provide direction to policy makers and health care systems regarding related issues. The most recent comprehensive CCS AF guidelines update was published in 2010. Since then, periodic updates were published dealing with rapidly changing areas. However, since 2010 a large number of developments had accumulated in a wide range of areas, motivating the committee to complete a thorough guideline review. The 2020 iteration of the CCS AF guidelines represents a comprehensive renewal that integrates, updates, and replaces the past decade of guidelines, recommendations, and practical tips. It is intended to be used by practicing clinicians across all disciplines who care for patients with AF. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate recommendation strength and the quality of evidence. Areas of focus include: AF classification and definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, screening and opportunistic AF detection, detection and management of modifiable risk factors, integrated approach to AF management, stroke prevention, arrhythmia management, sex differences, and AF in special populations. Extensive use is made of tables and figures to synthesize important material and present key concepts. This document should be an important aid for knowledge translation and a tool to help improve clinical management of this important and challenging arrhythmia.