A Randomized Controlled Trial of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure (The CAMTAF Trial)

Efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The study aims to evaluate whether rhythm control by catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy for the patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). The literatures were searched by using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to 12 October 2023. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rhythm control using catheter ablation vs. medical therapy in AF patients with HF were pooled. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, HF re-hospitalization, and stroke, and the secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), atrial tachyarrythmia recurrence, quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, MLHFQ score), 6 min walking distance (6MWD), the level of N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP), and adverse events. Nine RCTs involving in 2293 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality [10.07% (121/1201) vs. 15.26% (175/1147), risk ratio (RR):0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.74, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%] and the rate of HF re-hospitalization (RR: 0.65, P = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.94, I2 = 74%), but had no obvious difference in incidence of stroke (RR: 0.67, P = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38, I2 = 0%). Catheter ablation enhanced LVEF [mean difference (MD), 6.26%, P < 0.00001, I2 = 89%], reduced AT recurrence (RR: 0.37, P < 0.00001, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.52, I2 = 89%), improved the quality of life (MLHFQ score) (MD: -6.83, P = 0.003, I2 = 67%), elevated 6MWD (MD: 15.92, P = 0.006, I2 = 76%), and diminished the level NT-proBNP (MD: -44.19, P < 0.00001, I2 = 75%), but had no significant difference in adverse events [25.81% (310/1201) vs. 30.25% (347/1147), RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.01, P = 0.06, I2 = 55%]. Catheter ablation as rhythm control strategy substantially enhances the survival rate, reduces HF re-hospitalization, increases the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance, improves the left ventricular function and the quality of life for AF patients with HF, and has similar safety, compared with medical therapy. The rhythm control by catheter ablation may be a better strategy for the AF patients with 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, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unsettled.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) and medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone in patients with AF and HFrEF.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA with guideline-directed medical therapy for AF in patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 40%). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for eligible trials. A random effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 1055 patients were included, of whom 530 (50.2%) were randomized to CA. Compared with medical therapy, CA was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalization (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < .01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.31-0.70; P < .01), all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P < .01), and AF burden (MD -29.8%; 95% CI -43.73% to -15.90%; P < .01). Also, there was a significant improvement in LVEF (MD 3.8%; 95% CI 1.6%-6.0%; P < .01) and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; MD -4.92 points; 95% CI -8.61 to -1.22 points; P < .01) in the ablation group.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with AF and HFrEF, CA was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality as well as a significant improvement in LVEF and quality of life.

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

BACKGROUND

The benefit of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare catheter ablation and medical therapy (antiarrhythmics for rhythm or rate control) in patients with AF and HFpEF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Outcomes were the composite end points of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all-cause rehospitalization, and HF hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included 20,257 patients from 8 studies. Of those, 3 were derived from RCTs, either through post hoc analysis or subgroup analysis, and 5 were observational studies. The median follow-up ranged from 24.6 to 61.2 months. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.83; P = .001; I2 = 66%), all-cause death (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99; P = .047; I2 = 61%), cardiovascular death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P = .014; I2 = 22%), and HF hospitalization (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.82; P = .011; I2 = 87%).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Meta-analysis of Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in AF: A Broad Overview Focusing on Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes

The recently established non-thermal, single-shot pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a potential tool for achieving rapid pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to cause cell death by electroporation, yet data regarding this state-of-the-art technology remain sparse. In this meta-analysis, we included 3,857 patients from 20 studies. There was no significant difference in AF recurrence between the PFA and control groups. Subgroup analysis showed that additional ablation beyond PVI has a similar rate of AF recurrence to PVI alone (10% versus 13%, respectively). PVI durability was achieved in 83% (mean), 95% CI [65-99%] of the PFA group and in 79% (mean), 95% CI [60-98%] of the control group, with no significant difference in the rate of PVI durability between the two groups. The PFA group had considerably reduced procedure duration, but not fluoroscopy time. No statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications were observed. PFA is associated with shorter procedural time than thermal ablation. Cardiac complications were uncommon and mainly reversible in both the PFA and control groups.

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.

Effect of catheter ablation versus medical therapy on mental health and quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mental health is well-documented, but the relative benefits of catheter ablation versus medical therapy on mental health and quality of life are not clearly understood. This study assesses the impact of these interventions on AF patients' mental health and quality of life.

METHODS

Through a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy for AF were analyzed. The study focused on a range of outcomes, particularly mental health and quality of life, measured by tools including the SF-36 mental component, HADS, SF-36 physical component, and AFEQT scores, among others. Analyses were stratified by AF type (paroxysmal versus persistent) and synthesized using random or fixed-effects models to calculate mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

From 24 RCTs totaling 6,353 patients (51.4% receiving catheter ablation, 71.1% male, average age 59), catheter ablation was found to significantly improve mental health (SMD 0.34; 95% CI 0.05-0.63; p = 0.02) and quality of life as indicated by PCS SF-36 (MD 2.64; 95% CI 1.06-4.26; p < 0.01) and AFEQT scores (MD 6.24; 95% CI 4.43-8.05; p < 0.01), with no significant difference in outcomes between AF subtypes.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation offers significant improvements in mental health and quality of life over medical therapy for AF patients, demonstrating its efficacy across different types of AF.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and impact on clinical outcomes

Aims

Catheter ablation is the most effective rhythm-control option in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and is currently considered an option mainly for improving symptoms. We aimed to assess the impact of catheter ablation on hard clinical outcomes.

Methods and results

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation vs. optimized medical treatment. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on 8 January 2024, for trials published ≤10 years. We pooled data through risk ratio (RR) and mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT). Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were performed for the presence/absence of heart failure (HF), paroxysmal/persistent AF, early ablation, higher/lower quality, and published ≤5 vs. >5 years. Twenty-two RCTs were identified, including 6400 patients followed for 6-52 months. All primary endpoints were significantly reduced by catheter ablation vs. medical management: all-cause hospitalization (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.85, P = 0.006), AF relapse (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.58, P < 0.00001), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86, P = 0.0007, NNT = 44.7, driven by trials with HF patients). A benefit was also demonstrated for all secondary endpoints: cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87), cardiovascular (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96), and HF hospitalizations (RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89), AF burden (MD = 20.6%, 95% CI 5.6-35.5), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery (MD = 5.7%, 95% CI 3.5-7.9), and quality of life (MLHFQ, AFEQT, and SF-36 scales).

Conclusion

Catheter ablation significantly reduced hospitalizations, AF burden, and relapse, and improved quality of life. An impact on hard clinical outcomes, with an important mortality reduction and improvement in LVEF, was seen for patients with AF and HF.

Real-World Outcomes of a Rhythm Control Strategy for Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (<50%)

Background/Objectives: The effectiveness of a rhythm control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 50%) in real-world practice remains uncertain. Our objective was to evaluate the real-world outcomes of a rhythm control strategy in patients with AF and reduced LVEF, focusing on changes in LV systolic function and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels. Methods: The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 80 patients with concurrent AF and reduced LVEF who underwent rhythm control therapy between March 2015 and December 2021. Results: The patients had an average age of 63.6 years and an initial LVEF of 34.3%. Sinus rhythm was restored using anti-arrhythmic drugs (38, 47.5%) or electrical cardioversion (42, 52.5%). Over a follow-up period of 53.0 months, AF recurred in 65% of patients, with 57.7% undergoing catheter ablation. Significant improvements were noted in LVEF (from 34.3% to 55.1%, p < 0.001) and BNP levels (from 752 pg/mL to 72 pg/mL, p < 0.001) at the last follow-up. Nearly all patients (97.5%) continued with the rhythm control strategy during the follow-up period. Conclusions: In real-world settings, a rhythm control strategy proves to be feasible and effective for improving LVEF and reducing BNP levels in AF patients with reduced LVEF.

Association of Paroxysmal Versus Persistent Atrial Fibrillation with In-hospital Outcomes and 30-day Readmission After Inpatient Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Knowledge of the impact of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation on in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmission remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF who were hospitalized for AF ablation. Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years with AF who were hospitalized and underwent catheter ablation during 2017-2020. Then, we compared the in-hospital procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates between patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Our study included 7310 index admissions for paroxysmal AF ablation and 9179 index admissions for persistent AF ablation. According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in procedural complications-namely, cerebrovascular accident, vascular complications, major bleeding requiring blood transfusion, phrenic nerve palsy, pericardial complications, and systemic embolization-between the persistent and paroxysmal AF groups. There was also no significant difference in early mortality between these groups (0.5% vs. 0.7%; P = .22). Persistent AF patients had significantly higher rates of prolonged index hospitalization (9.9% vs. 7.2%; P < .01) and non-home discharge (4.8% vs. 3.1%; P < .01). The 30-day readmission rates were comparable in both groups (10.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .34), with recurrent AF and heart failure being two of the most common causes of cardiac-related readmissions. Catheter ablation among hospitalized patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF resulted in no significant difference in procedural complications, early mortality, or 30-day readmission. This suggests that catheter ablation of AF can be performed with a relatively similar safety profile for both paroxysmal and persistent AF.

2023 Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased exponentially in many developed countries, including Australia and New Zealand. This Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation from the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) recognises healthcare factors, expertise and expenditure relevant to the Australian and New Zealand healthcare environments including considerations of potential implications for First Nations Peoples. The statement is cognisant of international advice but tailored to local conditions and populations, and is intended to be used by electrophysiologists, cardiologists and general physicians across all disciplines caring for patients with AF. They are also intended to provide guidance to healthcare facilities seeking to establish or maintain catheter ablation for AF.

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.

Predictors of systolic function recovery after atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist. AF catheter ablation improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but its impact varies between patients. We aimed to identify predictors of LVEF improvement in HF patients with impaired LVEF undergoing AF ablation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study in HF patients with LVEF <50% undergoing AF catheter ablation between May 2016 and May 2022. The primary endpoint was the LVEF recovery rate ('responders'). Secondary endpoints were one-year safety and effectiveness. We also aimed to validate a prediction model for LVEF recovery.

RESULTS

The study included 100 patients (79% male, median age 60 years, 70% with probable tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy [TIC], mean LVEF 37%, 29% with paroxysmal AF). After a median follow-up of 12 months after catheter ablation, LVEF improved significantly (36±10% vs. 53±10%, p<0.001), with an 82% responder rate. A suspected diagnosis of TIC (OR 4.916 [95% CI 1.166-20.732], p=0.030), shorter QRS duration (OR 0.969 [95% CI 0.945-0.994], p=0.015), and smaller left ventricle (OR 0.893 [95% CI 0.799-0.999], p=0.049) were independently associated with LVEF improvement. Freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia was 86% (64% under antiarrhythmic drugs), and the rate of adverse events was 2%. The prediction model had a good discriminative performance (AUC 0.814 [95% CI 0.681-0.947]).

CONCLUSION

In AF patients with HF and impaired LVEF, suspected TIC, shorter QRS duration, and smaller LV diameter were associated with LVEF recovery following AF catheter ablation.

Trajectory change of left ventricular ejection fraction after rhythm control for atrial fibrillation in heart failure

AIMS

Rhythm control therapy has shown great benefits for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). However, few studies have evaluated the effects of rhythm control on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory across the whole HF spectrum. Our study explored the prevalence and predictors of LVEF trajectory changes and their prognostic implications following rhythm control.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Depending on the treatment strategy, the cohort was classified into rhythm and rate control groups. Alterations in HF types and LVEF trajectory were recorded. The observational endpoints were all-cause mortality and HF-related admission. Predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement in the rhythm control group were evaluated. After matching, the two groups had similar age [mean age (years): rhythm/rate control: 63.96/65.13] and gender [male: rhythm/rate control: n = 228 (55.6%)/233 (56.8%)]. Based on baseline LVEF measurement, the post-matched cohort had 490 HF with preserved ejection fraction (rhythm/rate control: n = 260/230; median LVEF: 58.00%/57.00%), 99 HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (rhythm/rate control: n = 50/49; median LVEF: 45.00%/46.00%), and 231 HF with reduced ejection fraction (rhythm/rate control: n = 100/131; median LVEF: 32.50%/33.00%). Trajectory analysis found that the rhythm control group had a greater percentage of LVEF trajectory improvement than the rate control group [80 (53.3%) vs. 71 (39.4%), P = 0.012]. Cox regression analysis also showed that the rhythm control group was more likely to have improved LVEF trajectory compared with the rate control group {hazard ratio [HR] 1.671 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.196-2.335], P = 0.003}. In the survival analysis, the rhythm control group experienced significant lower risks of all-cause mortality [HR 0.600 (95% CI 0.366-0.983), P = 0.043] and HF-related admission [HR 0.611 (95% CI 0.496-0.753), P < 0.001]. In the rhythm control subgroup, E/e' [odds ratio (OR) 0.878 (95% CI 0.792-0.974), P = 0.014], left ventricular end-diastolic diameter [OR 0.874 (95% CI 0.777-0.983), P = 0.024], and CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive HF, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, and sex category) [OR 0.647 (95% CI 0.438-0.955), P = 0.028] were identified as three independent predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhythm control is associated with improved LVEF trajectory and clinical outcomes and may thus be considered the optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with both HF and AF.

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 .

Catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. A review

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The higher mortality is due to the risk of heart failure and cardioembolic events. This in-depth review focuses on the strategies and efficacy of catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The main medical databases were searched for contemporary studies on catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal AF. Catheter ablation is currently proven to be the most effective treatment for AF and consists of pulmonary vein isolation as the cornerstone plus additional ablations. In terms of SR maintenance, it is less effective in non-paroxysmal AF than in paroxysmal patients. but the clinical benefit in non-paroxysmal patients is substantially higher. Since pulmonary vein isolation is ineffective, a variety of techniques have been developed, e.g. linear ablations, ablation of complex atrial fractionated electrograms, etc. Another paradox consists in the technique of catheter ablation. Despite promising results in early observation studies, further randomized studies have not confirmed the initial enthusiasm. Recently, a new approach, pulsed-field ablation, appears promising. This is an in-depth summary of current technologies and techniques for the ablation of non-paroxysmal AF. We discuss the benefits, risks and implications in the treatment of patients with non-paroxysmal AF.

Heart failure and atrial fibrillation: Is atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure pointless or mandatory?

A vast amount of now well-established clinical and epidemiological data indicates a close, interdependent, and symbiotic association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). Both AF and HF, when co-exist in a patient, have serious treatment and prognostic implications. Based on the prevailing knowledge of the topic, various societies have issued a number of guidelines regarding the management of patients with AF and HF. Overall, it is the rhythm control strategy that has shown beneficial effect over the rate control strategy with improvement in symptoms of AF and HF. While antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation (CA) may be utilized as rhythm control strategy for AF, both AADs and CA have limitations of their own. Furthermore, with the progress made in various pharmacotherapeutic agents in HF, one could question the utility of CA in HF (i.e., whether ablation is mandatory or pointless in patients who have HF). The purpose of this review is to discuss this very point, focusing on the beneficial, neutral, or detrimental outcome of CA based on the category and class of HF.

Long-term Patient and Health Service Outcomes of Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparative Systematic Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent problem worldwide and a common cause of hospitalization, poor quality of life, and increased mortality. Although several treatments are used, the use of ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy has increased in the past decade. However, debate continues on the most suitable option for heart rhythm control in patients. Previous studies have largely focused on short-term outcome effects of these treatments. This systematic review aims to determine the effect of ablation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs for AF on long-term patient and health service outcomes of mortality, hospitalization, and quality of life. Three databases were systematically searched-studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes of more than 12 months comparing the 2 treatments. Title and abstract screening and subsequent full-text screening was done by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted from the final studies identified. The details of the search were recorded according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses report. A total of 2224 records were identified. After removing duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, 68 records required full-text screening. Finally, 12 papers were included in the analysis. Eight studies reported mortality indicating ablation was superior, 2 studies reported hospitalization with opposing outcomes, and 5 quality of life studies indicating ablation was a better treatment. In studies assessing long-term outcomes, beyond 12 months, following ablation or rhythm control drugs for AF, most found a lower risk of death and greater improvement in quality of life in the ablation group.

Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis

To investigate the effect of ablation compared to medical therapy on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using ablation, medical treatment, AF, and related words. The effect of ablation and medical therapy was sought to be gathered on stroke or transitional ischemic attack, mortality, hospitalization, recurrence of AF, progression of AF, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Analyses were performed using R software. 31 studies (the results of 27 randomized controlled trials), compromising an overall 6965 patients (Ablation, n = 3643; Medical treatment, n = 3322) were reviewed in our study, revealed that catheter ablation would result in substantial benefits for patients with AF without significant difference in serious adverse events compared to medical management (Risk Ratio: 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.64-1.33]). Catheter ablation in patients with AF significantly resulted in a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71, [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]), a 57% reduction in hospitalization (RR: 0.43, [95% CI, 0.27-0.67]), a 53% reduction in AF recurrence (RR: 0.47, [95% CI, 0.36-0.61]), and a dramatic reduction, 89%, in progression of paroxysmal to persistent AF (RR: 0.11, [95% CI, 0.02-0.65]); also associated with a remarkable improvement in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (Mean Difference, MD: 6.84%, [95% CI, 3.27-10.42]) compared to medical therapy. Our study showed that ablation may be superior to medical therapy in patients with AF regarding AF recurrence, mortality, LVEF improvement, hospitalization, and AF progression outcomes.

Atrial fibrillation: comorbidities, lifestyle, and patient factors

Modern anticoagulation therapy has dramatically reduced the risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF still impairs quality of life, increases the risk of stroke and heart failure, and is linked to cognitive impairment. There is also a recognition of the residual risk of thromboembolic complications despite anticoagulation. Hence, AF management is evolving towards a more comprehensive understanding of risk factors predisposing to the development of this arrhythmia, its' complications and interventions to mitigate the risk. This review summarises the recent advances in understanding of risk factors for incident AF and managing these risk factors. It includes a discussion of lifestyle, somatic, psychological, and socioeconomic risk factors. The available data call for a practice shift towards a more individualised approach considering an increasingly broader range of health and patient factors contributing to AF-related health burden. The review highlights the needs of people living with co-morbidities (especially with multimorbidity), polypharmacy and the role of the changing population demographics affecting the European region and globally.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: clinical management in the context of recent therapeutic advances in heart failure and electrophysiology

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have emerged as major age-related epidemics within cardiology. Both conditions carry overlapping symptomatology, and delineating between AF and HFpEF from a diagnostic standpoint is challenging as echocardiographic and biomarker assessments used to diagnose HFpEF may be impacted by AF. Indeed, these two conditions are commonly found in the same individual, so much so that AF has been used in proposed diagnostic criteria for HFpEF. The frequent concomitant presence of these two conditions is associated with poorer quality of life, exertional capacity, as well as increased risk for decompensated heart failure and all-cause mortality. Though these deleterious effects of AF in HFpEF patients are well described, we currently have only a superficial understanding of the complex interplay between these two conditions. Preliminary studies on intervening in AF in HFpEF are very small, with mixed data on whether modifying the natural history of AF can lead to improvement in heart failure (HF) outcomes in HFpEF. In this review, we will describe the clinical implications of carrying both cardiovascular conditions, address recent advances in HFpEF and AF, and highlight preliminary studies targeted at reduction of effects associated with AF burden in HFpEF.

Clinical Utility of Baseline Brain Natriuretic Peptide Levels on Health Status Outcomes after Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Individuals without Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation (CA) benefits atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF). Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), a marker of left-ventricular pressure load, may serve as a potential surrogate for predicting quality of life (QOL) in a broader range of patients.

METHODS

Within the multicenter KiCS-AF registry, 491 AF patients underwent CA without clinical HF (e.g., documented history of HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, or BNP levels ≥ 100 pg/mL). Participants, aged 61 ± 10 years, were categorized by baseline BNP quartiles. Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire assessments were assessed at baseline and 1 year.

RESULTS

A lower baseline BNP correlated with reduced AFEQT scores. Post CA, all groups showed significant AFEQT score improvements. The lower-BNP group displayed notable enhancements (18.2 ± 1.2, 15.0 ± 1.1, 12.6 ± 1.2, 13.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.005), especially in symptom and treatment concern areas. Even those with normal BNP levels (≤18.4 pg/mL) exhibited significant QOL improvements. Comparing paroxysmal AF (PAF) and non-PAF groups, the PAF group, especially with higher BNP levels, showed greater AFEQT score improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes BNP as a predictive marker for QOL enhancement in non-HF patients undergoing CA for AF. BNP levels represent AF stages, with individuals in earlier stages, especially within normal BNP levels, experiencing greater QOL improvements.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: Where do we stand in 2023? - State of the art review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are common overlapping cardiovascular disorders. Despite important therapeutic advances over the past several decades, controversy persists about whether a rate control or rhythm control approach constitutes the best option in this population. There is also considerable debate about whether antiarrhythmic drug therapy or ablation is the best approach when rhythm control is pursued.  A brief historical examination of the literature addressing this issue will be performed. An analysis of several important clinical outcomes observed in the prospective, randomized studies, which have compared AF ablation to non-ablation treatment options, will be discussed. This review will conclude with recommendations to guide clinicians on the status of AF ablation as a treatment option when considering management options in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

Clinical Outcomes of Decompensated Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Admissions With or Without Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter

The aim of our retrospective study is to determine the influence of co-morbid atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) on decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF) admissions using data from the 2020 nationwide inpatient sample. We identified 76,835 adults admitted nonelectively with decompensated CHF. After multivariate adjustment, we found decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admissions with AF had 37% higher odds of in-hospital mortality, (OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.1-1.72] P < 0.01), 33% higher odds for mechanical ventilation (MV) (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.14-1.55] P < 0.01), 39% higher odds of early MV (OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.16-1.66] P < 0.01), 54% higher odds of cardiogenic shock (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.29-1.84] P < 0.01), 61% increased odds of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) requirement (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.12-2.31] P < 0.02), significantly higher odds of acute renal failure (AKI) necessitating dialysis (OR 2.20 [95% CI 1.39-2.48] P < 0.01), 1-day increase in mean length of stay (LOS) (6.7 vs 5.7 days, adjusted difference: 0.99, P < 0.01), $13,281 increase in total hospitalization charges ($84,316 vs $74,279, adjusted difference: $13,281, P < 0.05) compared to the non-AF cohort. Moreover, we found decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) admissions with AF had a 23% increased odds of MV (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01-1.50] P < 0.01), 24% higher odds of early MV (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.00-1.53] P < 0.01), 0.36 days increase in mean LOS (5.5 vs 5.2 days, adjusted difference: 0.36, P = < 0.01), but no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (OR 1.23 [95% CI 0.86-1.75] P = 0.25), cardiogenic shock (OR 1.75 [95% CI 0.96-3.19] P < 0.07), dialysis-dependent AKI (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.18-1.17] P < 0.10), or mean total hospitalization charges ($52,086 vs $47,990, adjusted difference: $5584, P = 0.06) compared to the non-AF cohort.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Current Practice and Future Perspectives

Catheter ablation to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is established as a mainstay in rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current practice and future perspectives in AF ablation. The main clinical benefit of AF ablation is the reduction of arrhythmia-related symptoms and improvement of quality of life. Catheter ablation of AF is recommended, in general, as a second-line therapy for patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF, who have failed or are intolerant to pharmacological therapy. In selected patients with heart failure and reduced left-ventricular fraction, catheter ablation was proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Also, optimal management of comorbidities can reduce AF recurrence after AF ablation; therefore, multimodal risk assessment and therapy are mandatory. To date, the primary ablation tool in widespread use is still single-tip catheter radiofrequency (RF) based ablation. Additionally, balloon-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has gained prominence, especially due to its user-friendly nature and established safety and efficacy profile. So far, the cryoballoon (CB) is the most studied single-shot device. CB-based PVI is characterized by high efficiency, convincing success rates, and a beneficial safety profile. Recently, CB-PVI as a first-line therapy for AF was shown to be superior to pharmacological treatment in terms of efficacy and was shown to reduce progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF. In this context, CB-based PVI gains more and more importance as a first-line treatment choice. Non-thermal energy sources, namely pulsed-field ablation (PFA), have garnered attention due to their cardioselectivity. Although initially applied via a basket-like ablation tool, recent developments allow for point-by-point ablation, particularly with the advent of a novel lattice tip catheter.

Relationship between coronary blood flow and improvement of cardiac function after catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The relationship between coronary blood flow during atrial fibrillation (AF) and improvement of cardiac function after catheter ablation (CA) for persistent AF (PeAF) is not prominent; this study was conducted to evaluate this relationship.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study. Eighty-five patients with PeAF (resting heart rate < 100 bpm) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%) who had undergone coronary angiography within 1 week before CA were included. All patients could maintain a sinus rhythm for > 6 months after CA. The primary outcome was improvement of cardiac function with an LVEF cutoff value of > 50% during sinus rhythm 6 months after CA.

RESULTS

In the LVEF improvement group (N = 57), patients were younger, with a higher baseline diastolic blood pressure and lower baseline brain natriuretic peptide level than the no LVEF improvement group (N = 28). Heart rate at baseline and 6 months after CA and AF duration did not differ between the two groups. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count parameters was significantly higher in the LVEF improvement (P < 0.001) than in the no LVEF improvement group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed mean thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count as an independent factor for LVEF improvement (odds ratio, 1.72 (95% confidence interval 1.17-2.54); P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Coronary blood flow in patients with PeAF is strongly associated with improved left ventricular systolic function after the restoration of sinus rhythm by CA for PeAF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Durability of pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis and systematic review

AIMS

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plays a central role in the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Uncertainties remain about the durability of ablation lesions from different energy sources. We aimed to systematically review the durability of ablation lesions associated with various PVI-techniques using different energy sources for the treatment of AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Structured systematic database search for articles published between January 2010 and January 2023 reporting PVI-lesion durability as evaluated in the overall cohort through repeat invasive remapping during follow-up. Studies evaluating only a proportion of the initial cohort in redo procedures were excluded. A total of 19 studies investigating 1050 patients (mean age 60 years, 31% women, time to remap 2-7 months) were included. In a pooled analysis, 99.7% of the PVs and 99.4% of patients were successfully ablated at baseline and 75.5% of the PVs remained isolated and 51% of the patients had all PVs persistently isolated at follow-up across all energy sources. In a pooled analysis of the percentages of PVs durably isolated during follow-up, the estimates of RFA were the lowest of all energy sources at 71% (95% CI 69-73, 11 studies), but comparable with cryoballoon (79%, 95%CI 74-83, 3 studies). Higher durability percentages were reported in PVs ablated with laser-balloon (84%, 95%CI 78-89, one study) and PFA (87%, 95%CI 84-90, 2 studies).

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant difference in the durability of the ablation lesions of the four evaluated energies after adjusting for procedural and baseline populational characteristics.

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.

Perspectives on Secondary Mitral Regurgitation in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review focuses on broader perspectives of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ratio of regurgitant volume to end-diastolic volume appears to help identify patients who may benefit from valve interventions. Secondary MR is not only attributed to geometric changes of the LV but also related to the structural changes in the mitral valve that include fibrosis of the mitral leaflets and changes in the extracellular matrix. The transition from mild to severe secondary MR can occur at different rates, from a slow LV remodeling process to a more abrupt process precipitated by an inciting event such as atrial fibrillation. Septal flash and apical rocking, two new visual markers of LV mechanical dyssynchrony, appear to be predictive of MR reduction following cardiac resynchronization therapy. Optimal guideline-directed medical therapy has been shown to decrease the severity of secondary MR effectively. A theoretical framework to characterize secondary MR as it relates to the onset of MR is proposed. Type A: Early onset of MR contemporaneous with myocardial injury. The maladaptive LV remodeling occurs in parallel with MR. Type B: LV remodeling proceeds without significant MR until the LV is moderately dilated, which coincides with or without inciting factors such as atrial fibrillation. Type C: LV remodeling proceeds after myocardial injury without significant MR until the LV is severely dilated. MR is a late manifestation of LV remodeling.

Impact of SGLT2 Inhibitors on AF Recurrence After Catheter Ablation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) on recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) among patients undergoing catheter ablation is not well described.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of SGLT2-Is on the recurrence of AF among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) after catheter ablation.

METHODS

Using the TriNetX research network, we identified, by means of Current Procedural Terminology codes, patients ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) who had undergone AF ablation from April 1, 2014, to November 30, 2021. Patients were stratified based on the baseline SGLT2-I use. Propensity-score matching resulted in 2,225 patients in each cohort. The primary outcome was a composite of cardioversion, new antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, or re-do AF ablation after a blanking period after the index ablation. Additional outcomes included heart failure exacerbations, ischemic stroke, all-cause hospitalization, and death during 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

SGLT2-I use in patients with type 2 DM undergoing AF ablation was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardioversion, new AAD therapy, and re-do AF ablation (adjusted OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.602-0.776; P < 0.0001). At 12 months, patients on SGLT2-Is had a higher probability of event-free survival (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95; log-rank test chi-square = 8.7; P = 0.003). All secondary outcomes were lower in the SGLT2I group; however, the ischemic stroke did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SGLT2-Is in patients with type 2 DM is associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia recurrence after AF ablation and thence a reduced need for cardioversion, AAD therapy, or re-do AF ablation.

The impact of age on ablation outcomes in AF-mediated cardiomyopathy

INTRODUCTION

The absence of ventricular scar in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and systolic heart failure (HF) predicts left ventricular (LV) recovery following AF ablation. It is unknown whether age impacts the degree of LV recovery, reverse remodeling, or AF recurrence following catheter ablation (CA) among this population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of age on LV recovery and AF recurrence in a population with AF and systolic HF without fibrosis (termed AF-mediated cardiomyopathy) following CA.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing CA between 2013 and 2021 with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 45% and absence of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) detected LV myocardial fibrosis were stratified by age (<65 vs. ≥65 years). Following CA, participants underwent remote rhythm monitoring for 12 months with repeat CMR for HF surveillance.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 70 patients (10% female, mean LVEF 33 ± 9%), stratified into younger (age < 65 years, 63%) and older (age ≥ 65 years, 37%) cohorts. Baseline comorbidities, LVEF (34 ± 9 vs. 33 ± 8 ≥65 years, p = .686), atrial and ventricular dimensions (left atrial volume index: 55 ± 21 vs. 56 ± 14 mL/m2 age ≥ 65, p = .834; indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume: 108 ± 40 vs. 104 ± 28 mL/m2 age ≥ 65, p = .681), pharmacotherapy and ablation strategy (pulmonary vein isolation in all; posterior wall isolation in 27% vs. 19% age ≥ 65, p = .448; cavotricuspid isthmus in 9% vs. 11.5% age ≥ 65) were comparable (all p > .05) albeit a higher CHADS2 VASc score in the older cohort (2.7 ± 0.9 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6 age < 65, p < .001).   Freedom from AF was comparable (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-1.48, LogRank p = .283) as was AF burden [0% (interquartile range, IQR: 0.0-2.1) vs. age ≥ 65: [0% (IQR 0.0-1.7), p = .516], irrespective of age. There was a significant improvement in LV systolic function in both groups (ΔLVEF + 21 ± 14% vs. +21 ± 12% age ≥ 65, p = .913), with LV recovery in the vast majority (73% vs. 69%, respectively, p = .759) at 13 (IQR: 12-16) months. This was accompanied by comparable improvements in functional status (New York Heart Association class p = .851; 6-min walk distance 50 ± 61 vs. 93 ± 134 m in age ≥ 65, p = .066), biomarkers (ΔN-terminal-pro brain natriuretic peptide -139 ± 246 vs. -168 ± 181 age ≥ 65,p = .629) and HF symptoms (Short Form-36 survey Δphysical component summary p = .483/Δmental component summary, p = .841).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing CA for AF with systolic HF in the absence of ventricular scar, comparable improvements in ventricular function, symptoms, and freedom from AF are achieved irrespective of age.

Effects of rhythm control on left atrial structure remodeling in atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background

The benefits of rhythm control for atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have not been conclusively determined. We assessed the effects of rhythm control on left atrial (LA) structure remodeling and prognosis in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Methods

This was a retrospective, real-world, observational study involving patients diagnosed with AF and HFpEF. The cohort was divided into rhythm-control and rate-control groups depending on their treatment strategies. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for any cause, HF-related rehospitalization, and stroke. Differences in follow-up LA structure parameters were also analyzed.

Results

Compared to the rate-control group, patients in the rhythm-control group had a lower risk of HF-related rehospitalization even after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted HR 0.605, 95% CI 0.413-0.887, p = 0.010). Moreover, rhythm-control therapy led to marked reductions in LA echocardiographic indicators and a higher proportion of LA reverse remodeling (LARR).

Conclusions

Rhythm-control therapy reverses LA structure remodeling and is associated with improved clinical outcomes; therefore, it is an optimal treatment approach for AF in HFpEF patients.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are highly prevalent cardiac disorders worldwide, and both are associated with poor prognosis. The incidence of AF and HF has been increasing substantially in recent years, mainly due to the progressive aging of the population. These disorders often coexist, and may have a causal relationship, with one contributing to the development or progression of the other. AF is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients, including mortality, hospitalization, and stroke. Although the optimal treatment for AF with HF remains unclear, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a promising treatment option. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of CA for managing AF in HF patients. In addition, the potential benefits and risks associated with CA are also discussed. We will also explore the factors that may influence treatment outcomes and highlight the remaining gaps in knowledge in this field.

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

AIMS

Management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant heart failure (HF) remains complex. The Antwerp score, based on four parameters [QRS >120 ms (2 points), known aetiology (2 points), paroxysmal AF (1 point), severe atrial dilation (1 point)] adequately estimated the probability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after AF ablation in a single-centre cohort. The present study aims to externally validate this prediction model in a large European multi-centre cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 605 patients (61.1 ± 9.4 years, 23.8% females, 79.8% with persistent AF) with HF and impaired LVEF (<50%) undergoing AF ablation in 8 European centres were retrospectively identified. According to the LVEF changes at 12-month echocardiography, 427 (70%) patients fulfilled the '2021 Universal Definition of HF' criteria for LVEF recovery and were defined as 'responders'. External validation of the score yielded good discrimination and calibration {area under the curve 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.89], P < .001; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .29}. Patients with a score < 2 had a 93% probability of LVEF recovery as opposed to only 24% in patients with a score > 3. Responders experienced more often positive ventricular remodelling [odds ratio (OR) 8.91, 95% CI 4.45-17.84, P < .001], fewer HF hospitalizations (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.18, P < .001) and lower mortality (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this multi-centre study, a simple four-parameter score predicted LVEF recovery after AF ablation in patients with HF and discriminated clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of the Antwerp score to standardize shared decision-making regarding AF ablation referral in future clinical studies.

Ablation to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Improve Outcomes: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Atrial fibrillation is the most common atrial arrhythmia and accounts for a significant burden of cardiovascular disease globally. With advances in implanted and wearable cardiac monitoring technology, it is now possible to readily and accurately quantify an individual's time spent in atrial fibrillation. This review summarizes the relationship between atrial fibrillation burden and adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes and discusses the role of catheter ablation to mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with greater burden of atrial fibrillation.

The impact of catheter ablation in patient's heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent trial data suggest a benefit to catheter ablation (CA) compared to medical therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, because of mixed trial evidence, contemporary guidelines give it a class 2 recommendation. Accordingly, we sought to assess the currently available evidence for CA in HF with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CA to medical therapy in patients with AF and HF. Study data was pooled using fixed and random effects, and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated to gauge absolute risk differences. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Nine trials (CA 1075 patients; medical therapy 1083 patients) were included. Ablation reduced the relative risk of all-cause mortality by 31.5% (95% CI 13.7 to 45.6%; NNT = 23), cardiovascular mortality by 39.3% (95% CI 10.9 to 58.7%; NNT = 31), cardiovascular hospitalization by 29.1% (95% CI 9.4 to 44.6%; NNT = 9), and heart failure hospitalization by 28.5% (95% CI 6.5 to 45.4%; NNT = 22). Improvements in quality of life were observed with CA using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference - 5.26; 95% CI - 2.73 to - 7.78) and the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (mean difference 5.36; 95% CI 2.72 to 8.00).

CONCLUSION

Compared to medical therapy, CA for AF in patients with HF reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations, and may improve quality of life.

Efficacy of Early Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation After Admission for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Advances in catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) have improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) and AF. However, its optimal timing remains to be fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of early CA in patients with HF and AF hospitalized for worsening HF.

METHODS

From JROADHF (Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) (n = 13,238), patients with HF and AF who underwent CA within 90 days after admission for HF (early CA; n = 103) and those who did not (control; n = 2,683) were identified. Mortality was compared between these groups in the crude cohort, as well as in the propensity-matched cohort (n = 83 in each group).

RESULTS

In the crude cohort, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early CA group than in the control group (log-rank P < 0.001; HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.24-0.60). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was likewise significantly lower in the early CA group (log-rank P = 0.014; HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.88). Cardiovascular death and HF mortality were significantly lower in both cohorts (crude: Gray' test: P < 0.001 and P = 0.005; subdistribution HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13-0.63] and HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.13-0.75]; matched: Gray's test: P = 0.006 and P = 0.017; subdistribution HR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.08-0.70] and HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.84], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide representative real-world cohort, CA for AF within 90 days after admission for HF was associated with improved long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular and HF death in patients with HF and AF.

Effects of Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation on Cardiac Remodeling and Valvular Regurgitation in Patients with Heart Failure

PURPOSE

Previous studies investigating cardiac remodeling and functional regurgitation of rhythm control for atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of rhythm control for AF on cardiac remodeling and functional regurgitation in the spectrum of HF. Its effect on prognosis was explored.

METHODS

According to the treatment strategies of AF, the cohort was classified into the rhythm control and rate control groups. To further detect the implications of rhythm control on cardiac remodeling, functional regurgitation, and outcomes in HF subtypes, patients were further divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 828 patients were enrolled, with 307 patients in the rhythm control group and 521 patients in the rate control group. Over a median follow-up time of 3.8 years, patients with rhythm control treatments experienced improvements in biatrial structure parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional regurgitation (mitral and tricuspid regurgitation) compared with rate control treatment (p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that rhythm control reduced the risks of all-cause mortality (HR 0.436 [95% CI, 0.218-0.871], p = 0.019) in HFpEF and HF-related admissions in HFrEF (HR 0.500 [95% CI, 0.330-0.757], p = 0.001) and HFpEF (HR 0.541 [95% CI, 0.407-0.720], p < 0.001); these associations were similar after adjusting for multiple confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhythm control therapy can be considered an appropriate treatment strategy for the management of AF in HF to improve cardiac remodeling, functional regurgitation, and prognosis.

Catheter Ablation for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation: An Update of the Literature

Catheter ablation has been shown to be more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm and improving quality of life when compared to antiarrhythmic drugs. Radiofrequency and cryoablation are two effective methods. However, catheter-only ablation strategies have not consistently produced high success rates in treating longstanding and persistent AF patients. The emerging treatment of choice for such cases is hybrid ablation, which involves a multidisciplinary and minimally invasive approach to achieve surgical ablation of the direct posterior left atrial wall in combination with endocardial catheter ablation. Studies have shown promising results for the hybrid approach when compared with catheter ablation alone, but it is not without risks. Large and randomised studies are necessary to further evaluate these strategies for managing AF.

Freedom from atrial arrhythmia and other clinical outcomes at 5 years and beyond after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is now a mainstream procedure although long-term outcomes are uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural outcomes at 5 years and beyond.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Embase and after the screening, identified 73 studies (67 159 patients) reporting freedom from atrial arrhythmia, all-cause death, stroke, and major bleeding at ≥5 years after AF ablation. The pooled mean age was 59.7y, 71.5% male, 62.2% paroxysmal AF, and radiofrequency was used in 78.1% of studies. Pooled incidence of freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 5 years was 50.6% (95%CI 45.5-55.7%) after a single ablation and 69.7% [95%CI (confidence interval) 63.8-75.3%) after multiple procedures. The incidence was higher among patients with paroxysmal compared with non-paroxysmal AF after single (59.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.002) and multiple (80.8% vs. 60.6%, p < 0.001) ablations but was comparable between radiofrequency and cryoablation. Pooled incidences of other outcomes were 6.0% (95%CI 3.2-9.7%) for death, 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.7%) for stroke, and 1.2% (95%CI 0.8-2.0%) for major bleeding at 5 years. Beyond 5 years, freedom from arrhythmia recurrence remained largely stable (52.3% and 64.7% after single and multiple procedures at 10 years), while the risk of stroke and bleeding increased over time.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 70% of patients having multiple ablations remained free from atrial arrhythmia at 5 years, with the incidence slightly decreasing beyond this period. Risk of death, stroke, and major bleeding at 5 years were low but increased over time, emphasizing the importance of long-term thromboembolism prevention and bleeding risk management.

Managing arrhythmia in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Arrhythmia is an extremely common finding in patients receiving cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Despite this, in the majority of randomised trials testing CRT efficacy, patients with a recent history of arrhythmia were excluded. Most of our knowledge into the management of arrhythmia in CRT is therefore based on arrhythmia trials in the heart failure (HF) population, rather than from trials dedicated to the CRT population. However, unique to CRT patients is the aim to reach as close to 100% biventricular pacing (BVP) as possible, with HF outcomes greatly influenced by relatively small changes in pacing percentage. Thus, in comparison to the average HF patient, there is an even greater incentive for controlling arrhythmia, to achieve minimal interference with the effective delivery of BVP. In this review, we examine both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, addressing their impact on CRT, and discuss the available evidence regarding optimal arrhythmia management in this patient group. We review pharmacological and procedural-based approaches, and lastly explore novel ways of harnessing device data to guide treatment of arrhythmia in CRT.

Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, Stroke, Quality of Life, All-Cause Mortality, Sinus Rhythm Maintenance, and Hospitalization Rates as Compared to Medical Therapy

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of heart failure (HF) accounts for a significant proportion of mortality. AF can be managed either with rate control or rhythm control strategies. Rate control involves the use of beta blockers or calcium channel blockers. Rhythm control methods use antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation (CA) to abolish the rhythm. Articles from PubMed and Google Scholar were chosen for review. The literature was reviewed for data from the last 10 years to be chosen for interpretation. Clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic analysis were included in this study. Various health parameters such as all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance, quality of life improvement, stroke risk, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement, and healthcare costs were analyzed. We demonstrated that CA was superior to medical therapy in reducing all-cause mortality and hospitalization. It leads to significant improvement in LVEF as SR was maintained consistently. Overall, quality of life improved in those who underwent ablation as compared to those who did not. Stroke risk reduction was seen in observational studies only. We recommend CA as first-line therapy for treating patients with AF in the setting of HF. More clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of ablation in reducing stroke risk.

In-hospital therapies and determinants of treatment strategy selection in patients with atrial fibrillation and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in China: a retrospective study based on the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Atrial Fibrillation (CCC-AF) project, 2015-2019

OBJECTIVES

The optimal treatment strategy remains debatable in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure. Our objectives were to summarise in-hospital therapies and determine factors associated with treatment strategy selections.

DESIGN

A retrospective study analysing the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Atrial Fibrillation (CCC-AF) project from 2015 to 2019.

SETTING

The CCC-AF project included patients from 151 tertiary and 85 secondary hospitals across 30 provinces in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction<50%) were included, with 5560 patients in the study sample.

METHODS

Patients were classified by treatment strategies. In-hospital treatments and trends of therapies were analysed. Multiple logistic regression models were used to find determinants of treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Rhythm control therapies were used in 16.9% of patients with no significant trends (p trend=0.175). Catheter ablation was used in 5.5% of patients, increasing from 3.3% in 2015 to 6.6% in 2019 (p trend<0.001). Factors negatively associated with rhythm control included increased age (OR 0.973, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.980), valvular AF (OR 0.618, 95% CI 0.419 to 0.911), AF types (persistent: OR 0.546, 95% CI 0.462 to 0.645; long-standing persistent: OR 0.298, 95% CI 0.240 to 0.368), larger left atrial diameters (OR 0.966, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.976) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (CCI 1-2: OR 0.630, 95% CI 0.529 to 0.750; CCI≥3: OR 0.551, 95% CI 0.390 to 0.778). Higher platelet counts (OR 1.025, 95% CI 1.013 to 1.037) and prior rhythm control attempts (electrical cardioversion: OR 4.483, 95% CI 2.369 to 8.483; catheter ablation: OR 4.957, 95% CI 3.072 to 7.997) were positively associated with rhythm control strategies.

CONCLUSION

In China, non-rhythm control strategy remained the dominant choice in patients with AF and LVSD. Age, AF types, prior treatments, left atrial diameters, platelet counts and comorbidities were major determinants of treatment strategies. Guideline-adherent therapies should be further promoted.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02309398.