Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) effectively treats atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improving clinical outcomes. However, its benefits for AF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still unclear.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for studies investigating outcomes of CA in AF patients with HFpEF. Efficacy indicators included freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) free AF elimination. Safety indicators comprised total complications, HF admission, all-cause admission, and all-cause mortality. Sixteen studies with 20,796 patients included in our research.

Results

The comprehensive analysis demonstrated that, when comparing CA with medical therapy in HFpEF, no significant differences were observed in terms of HF admissions, all-cause admissions, and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.12-1.51, P = 0.19), (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.48-1.27, P = 0.31), and (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.83-1.44, P = 0.51)], while freedom from AF was significantly higher in CA (OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.99-11.54, P < 0.00001). Compared with HFrEF, CA in HFpEF showed similar rates of freedom from AF, AAD-free AF elimination, total complications, and all-cause admission were similar [(OR:0.91; 95% CI: 0.71,1.17, P =0.47), (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.50-1.86, P = 0.93), (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.47-3.41, P = 0.64), (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.73; P = 0.63)]. However, CA in HFpEF was associated with lower rates of HF admission and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.60; P = 0.0002), (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.85; P = 0.02)]. Compared with patients without HF, CA in HFpEF patients exhibited lower rates of AAD-free AF elimination (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.75; P = 0.001). However, their rates of freedom from AF and total complications were similar [(OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P = 0.06), (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.90; P = 0.38)].

Conclusion

This meta-analysis conducted provided a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CA in patients with AF and HFpEF. The results suggest that CA may represent a valuable treatment strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier (CRD42024514169).

Moderate/severe biatrial dilation predicts adverse events after ablation in atrial fibrillation with heart failure

AIMS

To retrospectively compare the long-term outcomes following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF) and reduced/mildly reduced EF (HFr-mrEF) patients, and to identify novel predictors of adverse clinical events.

METHODS

In total, 1402 AF patients with HF who underwent successful ablation were consecutively enrolled. Adverse clinical events including all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and stroke were followed up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the associations between clinical factors and events. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidences of these events. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the ability of these predictors.

RESULTS

During a follow-up period of 42 ± 15 months, 265 (18.9%) patients experienced adverse clinical events after ablation. The cumulative incidence of adverse clinical events was significantly higher in HFr-mrEF than in HFpEF (25.4% vs. 15.7%, P < 0.001), the similar tendency was observed on all-cause death (10.5% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.011) and HF hospitalization (17.2% vs. 10.1%, P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, non-paroxysmal AF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.922, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.130-3.268, P = 0.016], LAD ≥ 45 mm (HR 2.197, 95% CI 1.206-4.003, P < 0.001), LVEF (HR 0.959, 95% CI 0.946-0.981, P < 0.001), and RAD ≥ 45 mm (HR 2.044, 95% CI 1.362-3.238, P < 0.001) remained the independent predictors for developing adverse clinical events. A predictive model performed with non-paroxysmal AF, LAD ≥ 45 mm and RAD ≥ 45 mm yielded an area under curve of 0.728 (95% CI 0.696-0.760, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AF patients with HFpEF had better long-term outcomes than those with HFr-mrEF, and moderate/severe biatrial dilation could predict adverse clinical events following catheter ablation in AF and HF patients.

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 in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) for 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 the R program (version 4.3.2). 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 mortality, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy in atrial fibrillation: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials

This umbrella review synthesizes data from 17 meta-analyses investigating the comparative outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) and medical treatment (MT) for atrial fibrillation (AF). Outcomes assessed were mortality, risk of hospitalization, AF recurrence, cardiovascular events, pulmonary vein stenosis, major bleeding, and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and MLHFQ score. The findings indicate that CA significantly reduces overall mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization with high strength of evidence. The risk of AF recurrence was notably lower with CA, with moderate strength of evidence. Two associations reported an increased risk of pulmonary vein stenosis and major bleeding with CA, supported by high strength of evidence. Improved LVEF and a positive change in MLHFQ were also associated with CA. Among patients with AF and heart failure, CA appears superior to MT for reducing mortality, improving LVEF, and reducing cardiovascular rehospitalizations. In nonspecific populations, CA reduced mortality and improved LVEF but had higher complication rates. Our findings suggest that CA might offer significant benefits in managing AF, particularly in patients with heart failure. However, the risk of complications, including pulmonary vein stenosis and major bleeding, is notable. Further research in understudied populations may help refine these conclusions.

Transesophageal echocardiography and computerized tomography angiography mismatch in left atrial appendage thrombus evaluation

BACKGROUND

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the gold standard test for the diagnosis of left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus. Nonetheless, computerized tomography angiography (CTA) is readily used to exclude LAA thrombus before pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and LAA closure procedures. We aimed to assess the comparability of LAA thrombus diagnosis using chest CTA scans in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent TEE.

METHODS

Retrospective collection of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent TEE and chest CTA within 30 days and had evidence of spontaneous echo contrast (SEC) or LAA thrombus on TEE. Clinical, demographic, and echo data were collected. Prospective analysis of the CTA for evidence of LAA thrombus in the same group of patients was performed. We compared the findings of the two modalities.

RESULTS

Out of 1550 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent TEE examinations in the study period, 63 patients underwent TEE within 30 days of a chest CTA scan. Twenty-three patients had LAA thrombus and 40 had some degree of SEC according to TEE. On CTA, 11 were interpreted as positive with a high level of suspicion for the presence of an LAA thrombus. Six patients (26.1%) had LAA thrombus according to both CT and TEE. Therefore, low concordance was found between test results (chi-squared continuity correction = 5.5, df  = 1, and P -value = 0.01902).

CONCLUSION

The discrepancy between CTA and TEE results suggests these examinations might be more suitable as complementary examinations to exclude LAA thrombus.

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.

Atrial Fibrillation Associated with Heart Failure: Perspectives from Recent Large Clinical Studies and Translational Research

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major public health issue [...].

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

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

Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing prevalence. Pharmacologic treatment remains the cornerstone of its management through rhythm and rate control, as well as the prevention of thromboembolism with the use of oral anticoagulants. Recent progress in percutaneous interventional approaches have provided additional options in the therapeutic arsenal, however. The use of the different catheter ablation techniques can now lead to long arrhythmia-free intervals and significantly lower AF burden, thus reducing the rate of its complications. Particularly encouraging evidence is now available for patients with persistent AF or concomitant heart failure, situations in which catheter ablation could even be a first-line option. In the field of stroke prevention, targeting the left atrial appendage with percutaneous device implantation may reduce the risk of thromboembolism to lower rates than that predicted with conventional ischemic risk scores. Left atrial appendage occlusion through the approved Watchman or Amplatzer devices is a well-established, efficacious, and safe method, especially in high-ischemic and bleeding risk patients with contraindications for oral anticoagulation.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential of CA to benefit AF patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Hypothesis

CA may be safe and effective for patients with HFpEF.

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating CA for AF patients with HFpEF.

Results

A total of seven trials with 1696 patients were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar procedure and fluoroscopy time regarding the use of CA for patients with HFpEF and without HF (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.01–0.81, p = .05 and [WMD: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.18–0.28, p = .68]). Moreover, CA was effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with HFpEF and noninferior for patients without HF [risk ratio (RR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76–1.10, p = .34). Additionally, CA tended to significantly maintain SR (RR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.86–12.03, p = .001) and reduce rehospitalization for HF compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19–0.71, p = .003). However, no significant differences were found between two groups regarding the mortality rate (p = .59).

Conclusion

CA is a potential treatment strategy for patients with HFpEF and demonstrates equivalent efficacy to that of patients without HF. Moreover, the benefits of CA in maintaining SR and reducing rehospitalization of HF patients were significantly better than those of medical therapy. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.