Reversal of left ventricular dysfunction following ablation of atrial fibrillation

Effect of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation on Heart Failure Readmission Rates

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) cause numerous hospital admissions. We investigated if AF increases readmissions in patients with HF and whether AF ablation alters readmissions for HF exacerbations. The 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database was analyzed for all-cause 90-day readmissions, after discharge for HF exacerbation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare hazard rates for readmissions due to HF exacerbation, after recent ablation versus no ablation. There were 885,270 admissions for HF exacerbation of which 364,447 had coexisting AF. All-cause 90-day readmission rates were higher in patients with HF with coexisting AF versus those without AF (41.4% vs 37.6%, p <0.0001). Associated factors increasing all-cause 90-day readmissions after ablation in patients without HF were female (odds ratio [OR] 1.44, p <0.001), complication of ablation (OR 1.44, p = 0.022), coronary artery disease (OR 1.56, p <0.001), chronic lung disease (OR 1.74, p <0.001), and malnutrition (OR 10.33, p <0.001). These factors were not significant for patients with HF. HF was not a significant risk factor for complications of ablation (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.18). Patients who underwent ablation versus patients who were discharged after HF exacerbation without ablation had a lower rate and length of stay for the 90-day readmission episode, due to HF exacerbation (27.5% vs 41.4%, p <0.0001, and 5.58 days vs 6.60 days, p = 0.031, respectively). In conclusion, AF increased 90-day readmissions in patients with HF, and ablation for AF in patients with HF was associated with reduced frequency, length of stay, and readmissions without an increase in complication rates.

Korean Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is skyrocketing worldwide, and is closely associated with serious morbidity and mortality. In particular, HF is one of the main causes for the hospitalization and mortality in elderly individuals. Korea also has these epidemiological problems, and HF is responsible for huge socioeconomic burden. However, there has been no clinical guideline for HF management in Korea. 
The present guideline provides the first set of practical guidelines for the management of HF in Korea and was developed using the guideline adaptation process while including as many data from Korean studies as possible. The scope of the present guideline includes the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic HF with reduced/preserved ejection fraction of various etiologies.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: a Therapeutic Challenge of Our Times

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are growing cardiovascular disease epidemics worldwide. There has been an exponential increase in the prevalence of AF and HF correlating with an increased burden of cardiac risk factors and improved survival rates in patients with structural heart disease. AF is associated with adverse prognostic outcomes in HF and is most evident in mild-to-moderate left ventricular (LV) dysfunction where the loss of "atrial kick" translates into poorer quality of life and increased mortality. In the absence of underlying structural heart disease, arrhythmia can independently contribute to the development of cardiomyopathy. Together, these 2 conditions carry a high risk of thromboembolism due to stasis, inflammation and cellular dysfunction. Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) remains a mainstay of treatment. Pharmacologic rate and rhythm control remain limited by variable efficacy, intolerance and adverse reactions. Catheter ablation for AF has resulted in a paradigm shift with evidence indicating superiority over medical therapy. While its therapeutic success is high for paroxysmal AF, it remains suboptimal in persistent AF. A better mechanistic understanding of AF as well as innovations in ablation technology may improve patient outcomes in the future. Refractory cases may benefit from atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacing. The value of risk factor modification, especially with regard to obesity, sleep apnea, hypertension and diabetes, cannot be emphasized enough. Close interdisciplinary collaboration between HF specialists and electrophysiologists is an essential component of good long-term outcomes in this challenging population.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: An Overview for Clinicians

Catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently one of the most commonly performed electrophysiology procedures. Ablation of paroxysmal AF is based on the elimination of triggers by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), while different strategies for additional AF substrate modification on top of PVI have been proposed for ablation of persistent AF. Nowadays, various technologies for AF ablation are available. The radiofrequency point-by-point ablation navigated by electro-anatomical mapping system and cryo-balloon technology are comparable in terms of the efficacy and safety of the PVI procedure. Long-term success of AF ablation including multiple procedures varies from 50 to 80%. Arrhythmia recurrences commonly occur, mostly due to PV reconnection. The recurrences are particularly common in patients with non-paroxysmal AF, dilated left atrium and the "early recurrence" of AF within the first 2-3 post-procedural months. In addition, this complex procedure can be accompanied by serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade, stroke, atrio-esophageal fistula and PV stenosis. Therefore, CA represents a second-line treatment option after a trial of antiarrhythmic drug(s). Good candidates for the procedure are relatively younger patients with symptomatic and frequent episodes of AF, with no significant structural heart disease and no significant left atrial enlargement. Randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of ablation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs in terms of improving the quality of life and symptoms in AF patients. However, nonrandomized studies reported additional clinical benefits from ablation over drug therapy in selected AF patients, such as the reduction of the mortality and stroke rates and the recovery of tachyarrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy. Future research should enable the creation of more durable ablative lesions and the selection of the optimal lesion set in each patient according to the degree of atrial remodeling. This could provide better long-term CA success and expand indications for the procedure, especially among the patients with non-paroxysmal AF.

Pulmonary Vein Antral Isolation and Nonpulmonary Vein Trigger Ablation Are Sufficient to Achieve Favorable Long-Term Outcomes Including Transformation to Paroxysmal Arrhythmias in Patients With Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Transformation from persistent to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after ablation suggests modification of the underlying substrate. We examined the nature of initial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with nonparoxysmal AF undergoing antral pulmonary vein isolation and nonpulmonary vein trigger ablation and correlated recurrence type with long-term ablation efficacy after the last procedure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred and seventeen consecutive patients with persistent (n=200) and long-standing persistent (n=117) AF undergoing first ablation were included. AF recurrence was defined as early (≤6 weeks) or late (>6 weeks after ablation) and paroxysmal (either spontaneous conversion or treated with cardioversion ≤7 days) or persistent (lasting >7 days). During median follow-up of 29.8 (interquartile range: 14.8-49.9) months, 221 patients had ≥1 recurrence. Initial recurrence was paroxysmal in 169 patients (76%) and persistent in 52 patients (24%). Patients experiencing paroxysmal (versus persistent) initial recurrence were more likely to achieve long-term freedom off antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.2; P<0.0001), freedom on/off antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.8; P<0.0001), and arrhythmia control (hazard ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-9.2; P<0.0001) after last ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF, limited ablation targeting pulmonary veins and documented nonpulmonary vein triggers improves the maintenance of sinus rhythm and reverses disease progression. Transformation to paroxysmal AF after initial ablation may be a step toward long-term freedom from recurrent arrhythmia.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure - Cause or Effect?

There are emerging epidemics of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure in most developed countries, with a significant health burden. Due to many shared pathophysiological mechanisms, which facilitate the maintenance of each condition, AF and heart failure co-exist in up to 30% of patients. In the circumstance where known structural causes of heart failure (such as myocardial infarction) are absent, patients presenting with both conditions present a unique challenge, particularly as the temporal relationship of each condition can often remain elusive from the clinical history. The question of whether the AF is driving, or significantly contributing to the left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, rather than merely a consequence of heart failure, has become ever more pertinent, especially as catheter ablation now offers a significant advancement over existing rhythm control strategies. This paper will review the inter-related physiological drivers of AF and heart failure before considering the implications from the outcomes of recent clinical trials in patients with AF and heart failure.

Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each complicates the course and treatment of the other. Recent population-based studies have demonstrated that the 2 conditions together increase the risk of stroke, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, especially soon after the clinical onset of AF. Guideline-directed pharmacological therapy for HFrEF is important; however, although there are various treatment modalities for AF, there is no clear consensus on how best to treat AF with concomitant HFrEF. This in-depth review discusses the available data for the treatment of AF in the setting of HFrEF, focuses on areas where more investigation is necessary, examines the clinical implications of randomized and observational clinical trials, and presents suggestions for individualized treatment strategies for specific patient groups.

Comparison of Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Reduced Versus Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and a rapid ventricular response may present with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We compared long-term outcomes of these patients with those with preserved LVEF. This retrospective cohort study included 385 consecutive adults with newly diagnosed AF with rapid ventricular response, presenting to a single medical center from January 2006 to August 2014. Patients with a history of coronary artery disease or known cardiomyopathy were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with an LVEF ≤55% (n = 147) (REF) and those with an LVEF >55% (n = 238) (PEF). Echocardiographic parameters, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke rates were compared between both groups at baseline and a minimum of 1-year follow-up. The mean age of patients was 68 ± 1.1 in REF versus 60 ± 7.4 in PEF (p = 0.39). There were no significant differences in baseline co-morbidities between both groups. The mean LVEF during the index admission was 47.7 ± 0.8% in REF versus 65.5 ± 0.3% in PEF. The average duration of follow-up was 2.8 years. Patients with REF had higher all-cause mortality (32.7% REF vs 20.6% PEF, odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.008). Patients with REF had higher rates of subsequent clinic or ER visits for AF with a rapid ventricular response (32% REF vs 22.7% PEF, p = 0.044). The incidence of stroke was similar between both groups (17% REF vs 18.9% PEF, p = 0.639). Of the patients with REF, 64% had subsequent EF recovery and had similar outcomes compared with patients with PEF. Baseline LV end-diastolic diameter predicted all-cause mortality (odds ratio 1.14, p = 0.003) in the REF group. None of the echocardiographic parameters predicted EF recovery. In conclusion, in patients with new AF with rapid ventricular response, REF was associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality. Those with subsequent LVEF recovery after medical therapy appear to have a similar prognosis compared with those with initial PEF.

How to Improve Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Benefit in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Pulmonary Vein Isolation (and Beyond)

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment of symptomatic heart failure patients in sinus rhythm with low left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular dyssynchrony, its role is not well defined in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). CRT is not as effective in patients with AF because of inadequate biventricular capture and loss of atrioventricular synchrony. Both can be addressed with catheter ablation of AF. It is still unclear if these therapies offer additive benefits in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony. This article discusses the role and techniques of catheter ablation of AF in patients with heart failure, and its application in CRT recipients.

Effect of Late Gadolinium Enhancement on the Recovery of Left Ventricular Systolic Function After Pulmonary Vein Isolation

BACKGROUND

The factors that predict recovery of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are not completely understood. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) of the LV has been reported among patients with AF, and we aimed to test whether the presence LGE was associated with subsequent recovery of LV systolic function among patients with AF and LV dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From a registry of 720 consecutive patients undergoing a cardiac magnetic resonance study prior to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), patients with LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction [EF] <50%) were identified. The primary outcome was recovery of LVEF defined as an EF >50%; a secondary outcome was a combined outcome of subsequent heart failure (HF), admission, and death. Of 720 patients, 172 (24%) had an LVEF of <50% prior to PVI. The mean LVEF pre-PVI was 41±6% (median 43%, range 20% to 49%). Forty-three patients (25%) had LGE (25 [58%] ischemic), and the extent of LGE was 7.5±4% (2% to 19%). During follow-up (mean 42 months), 91 patients (53%) had recovery of LVEF, 68 (40%) had early recurrence of AF, 65 (38%) had late AF, 18 (5%) were admitted for HF, and 23 died (13%). Factors associated with nonrecovery of LVEF were older age, history of myocardial infarction, early AF recurrence, late AF recurrence, and LGE. In a multivariable model, the presence of LGE and any recurrence of AF had the strongest association with persistence of LV dysfunction. Additionally, all patients without recurrence of AF and LGE had normalization of LVEF, and recovery of LVEF was associated with reduced HF admissions and death.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AF and LV dysfunction undergoing PVI, the absence of LGE and AF recurrence are predictors of LVEF recovery and LVEF recovery in AF with associated reduction in subsequent death and heart failure.

Catheter ablation versus medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of restoring the sinus rhythm by catheter ablation relative to that of medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) remains to be defined.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles that compared the outcomes of interest between catheter ablation and medical rate control therapy in persistent AF patients with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The primary endpoint was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following catheter ablation or medical rate control therapy relative to baseline. Other endpoints included changes in cardiac function and exercise capacity, including the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, the brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, the peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 143 patients were included. At the overall term follow-up, catheter ablation significantly improved the LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 6.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-11.74, P = 0.03) and peak VO2 (MD: 2.81 mL/kg/min; 95% CI: 0.78-4.85, P = 0.007) and reduced the NYHA class (MD: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.59-1.21, P < 0.001) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaires (MLHFQ) scores (MD: -11.05; 95% CI: -19.45 - -2.66, P = 0.01) compared with the medical rate control for persistent AF patients with HF. Alterations in parameters, such as the BNP level, 6MWT, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire scores also revealed trends that favored catheter ablation therapy, although these differences were not significant.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation resulted in improved LVEF, cardiac function, exercise capacity, and QOL for persistent AF patients with HF compared with the medical rate control strategy.

Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device

Background—

Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to amiodarone (AMIO) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is unknown.

Methods and Results—

This was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with persistent AF, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 months were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo CA for AF (group 1, n=102) or receive AMIO (group 2, n=101). Recurrence of AF was the primary end point. All-cause mortality and unplanned hospitalization were the secondary end points. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 24 months. At the end of follow-up, 71 (70%; 95% confidence interval, 60%–78%) patients in group 1 were recurrence free after an average of 1.4±0.6 procedures in comparison with 34 (34%; 95% confidence interval, 25%–44%) in group 2 (log-rank P <0.001). The success rate of CA in the different centers after a single procedure ranged from 29% to 61%. After adjusting for covariates in the multivariable model, AMIO therapy was found to be significantly more likely to fail (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–4.3; P <0.001) than CA. Over the 2-year follow-up, the unplanned hospitalization rate was (32 [31%] in group 1 and 58 [57%] in group 2; P <0.001), showing 45% relative risk reduction (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.76). A significantly lower mortality was observed in CA (8 [8%] versus AMIO (18 [18%]; P =0.037).

Conclusions—

This multicenter randomized study shows that CA of AF is superior to AMIO in achieving freedom from AF at long-term follow-up and reducing unplanned hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure and persistent AF.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00729911.

Ablation as First-Line Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Yes

This article addresses the use of catheter ablation (CA) as first-line therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). CA increases long-term freedom from AF, reduces hospitalizations, and improves quality of life compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with symptomatic AF who have already failed one AAD. The role of CA as first-line therapy for AF, however, is still controversial. Evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that CA is definitely superior to AADs as first-line therapy for relatively young patients with paroxysmal AF, with comparable complication rates and results consistently reproducible across different institutions, operators, and types of ablation approaches.

What About Tachycardia-induced Cardiomyopathy?

Long-standing tachycardia is a well-recognised cause of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, and has led to the nomenclature, tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC). TIC is generally a reversible cardiomyopathy if the causative tachycardia can be treated effectively, either with medications, surgery or catheter ablation. The diagnosis is usually made after demonstrating recovery of left ventricular function with normalisation of heart rate in the absence of other identifiable aetiologies. One hundred years after the first reported case of TIC, our understanding of the pathophysiology of TIC in humans remains limited despite extensive work in animal models of TIC. In this review we will discuss the proposed mechanisms of TIC, the causative tachyarrhythmias and their treatment, outcomes for patients diagnosed with TIC, and future directions for research and clinical care.

Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathies: Mechanisms, Recognition, and Management

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is a potentially reversible condition in which left ventricular dysfunction is induced or mediated by atrial or ventricular arrhythmias. Cellular and extracellular changes in response to the culprit arrhythmia have been identified, but specific pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear. Early recognition of AIC and prompt treatment of the culprit arrhythmia using pharmacological or ablative techniques result in symptom resolution and recovery of ventricular function. Although cardiomyopathy in response to an arrhythmia may take months to years to develop, recurrent arrhythmia can result in rapid decline in ventricular function with development of heart failure, suggesting residual ultrastructural abnormalities. Reports of sudden death in patients with normalized left ventricular ejection fraction cast doubt on the complete reversibility of this condition. Several aspects of AIC, including specific pathophysiological mechanisms, predisposing factors, optimal therapeutic strategies to prevent ultrastructural changes, and long-term risk of sudden death remain unresolved and need further research.

Atrial fibrillation ablation and left appendage closure in heart failure patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure experience an increased morbidity and mortality from the hemodynamic consequences of atrial fibrillation and an increased stroke risk. Consequently, there has been increased attention to procedural alternatives to pharmacologic rhythm control and anticoagulation for stroke prevention. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure in heart failure patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several randomized control trials and systematic reviews demonstrate the safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. In multiple trials, these patients have shown clinical benefit from atrial fibrillation ablation including improved left ventricular systolic function, quality of life, and clinical heart failure symptoms. The evidence of clinical benefit of atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction remains limited. Only a handful of randomized controlled trials have been performed evaluating left atrial appendage closure, and there is insufficient data regarding the safety and efficacy of these procedures in heart failure patients.

SUMMARY

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients remains well tolerated with an overall efficacy comparable to atrial fibrillation ablation in patients without heart failure. There is consistent evidence for the clinical benefit of atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and limited evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. Currently, there is insufficient data regarding the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure devices in heart failure patients.

Comorbidity of atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are evolving epidemics, together responsible for substantial human suffering and health-care expenditure. Ageing, improved cardiovascular survival, and epidemiological transition form the basis for their increasing global prevalence. Although we now have a clear picture of how HF promotes AF, gaps remain in our knowledge of how AF exacerbates or even causes HF, and how the development of HF affects the outcome of patients with AF. New data regarding HF with preserved ejection fraction and its unique relationship with AF suggest a possible role for AF in its aetiology, possibly as a trigger for ventricular fibrosis. Deciding on optimal treatment strategies for patients with both AF and HF is increasingly difficult, given that results from trials of pharmacological rhythm control are arguably obsolete in the age of catheter ablation. Restoring sinus rhythm by catheter ablation seems successful in the medium term and improves HF symptoms, functional capacity, and left ventricular function. Long-term studies to examine the effect on rates of stroke and death are ongoing. Guidelines continue to evolve to keep pace with this rapidly changing field.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: what should we do?

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are two conditions that are likely to dominate the next 50 years of cardiovascular (CV) care. Both are increasingly prevalent and associated with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost. They are closely inter-related with similar risk factors and shared pathophysiology. Patients with concomitant HF and AF suffer from even worse symptoms and poorer prognosis, yet evidence-based evaluation and management of this group of patients is lacking. In this review, we evaluate the common mechanisms for the development of AF in HF patients and vice versa, focusing on the evidence for potential treatment strategies. Recent data have suggested that these patients may respond differently than those with HF or AF alone. These results highlight the clear clinical need to identify and treat according to best evidence, in order to prevent adverse outcomes and reduce the huge burden that HF and AF are expected to have on global healthcare systems in the future. We propose an easy-to-use clinical mnemonic to aid the initial management of newly discovered concomitant HF and AF, the CAN-TREAT HFrEF + AF algorithm (Cardioversion if compromised; Anticoagulation unless contraindication; Normalize fluid balance; Target initial heart rate <110 b.p.m.; Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone modification; Early consideration of rhythm control; Advanced HF therapies; Treatment of other CV disease).

How to Improve Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Benefit in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Pulmonary Vein Isolation (and Beyond)

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment of symptomatic heart failure patients in sinus rhythm with low left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular dyssynchrony, its role is not well defined in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). CRT is not as effective in patients with AF because of inadequate biventricular capture and loss of atrioventricular synchrony. Both can be addressed with catheter ablation of AF. It is still unclear if these therapies offer additive benefits in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony. This article discusses the role and techniques of catheter ablation of AF in patients with heart failure, and its application in CRT recipients.

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation vs. rate control of atrial fibrillation in systolic left ventricular dysfunction : A meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

It is unclear what constitutes the optimal strategy for management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with systolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. We hypothesized that catheter ablation of AF had benefits compared with rate control in patients with systolic LV dysfunction.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized, observational studies. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), functional capacity, and quality of life between a catheter ablation group and a rate control group.

RESULTS

Six trials with 324 patients were included in the analysis. Patients in the catheter ablation group had greater improvement of LVEF (WMD: 8.89; 95 % CI: 6.93-10.86; p < 0.001), 6-min walk distance (WMD: 46.9; 95 % CI: 28.5-65.4; p < 0.001), and lower Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) scores (WMD: - 19.6; 95 % CI: - 23.6-- 15.7; p < 0.001) compared with patients in the rate control group. Overall, there were only ten procedure-related events and the procedure-related events rate was 4.9 % per procedure and 5.6 % per patient.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis suggests that catheter ablation of AF has benefits in terms of an improvement in LVEF, in functional capacity, and in quality of life compared with rate control in patients with systolic LV dysfunction, and the risk of complications related to procedures is acceptable.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: update 2015

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist, adversely affect mortality, and impose a significant burden on healthcare resources. The presence of AF and HF portends a poor prognosis as well as an increased thromboembolic risk. In patients whose AF is symptomatic, rhythm restoration with either antiarrhythmic drugs or procedural therapies (e.g., pulmonary vein isolation, either catheter-based or surgical) should be considered for symptom improvement, though a mortality benefit has yet to be demonstrated. Emerging evidence suggests that non-pharmacological treatment for AF (including catheter based ablation, hybrid surgical techniques, and atrioventricular node ablation with biventricular pacing) may be of value in improving HF patients' quality of life.

Anticoagulation in Heart Failure: a Review

Heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular function inflicts a large and growing burden of morbidity and mortality in the US and across the globe. One source of this burden is stroke. While it appears that HF itself may impose some risk of stroke, it is in the presence of other risk factors, like atrial fibrillation, that the greatest risks are observed. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the mainstay of risk reduction strategies in this population. While warfarin was the only available therapy for anticoagulation for many decades, there are now four direct oral anticoagulants available. In three of these four, outcomes in the specific subgroup of patients with heart failure have been examined. In this review, we provide some pathophysiologic basis for the risk of stroke in heart failure. In addition, the available therapeutic options for stroke risk prevention in heart failure are described in detail including how these options are incorporated into relevant professional society guidelines.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: cause or effect?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are two epidemics of the century that have a close and complex relationship. The mechanisms underlying this association remain an area of ongoing intense research. In this review, we will describe the relationship between these two public health concerns, the mechanisms that fuel the development and perpetuation of both, and the evolving concepts that may revolutionize our approach to this dual epidemic.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Background—

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFCA) is an established therapeutic option for rhythm control in symptomatic patients. Its efficacy and safety among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction is based on small populations, and data concerning long-term outcome are limited. We performed this meta-analysis to assess safety and long-term outcome of AFCA in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, to evaluate predictors of recurrence and impact on left ventricular function.

Methods and Results—

A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational studies including patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing AFCA were included. Twenty-six studies were selected, including 1838 patients. Mean follow-up was 23 (95% confidence interval, 18–40) months. Overall complication rate was 4.2% (3.6%–4.8%). Efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm at follow-up end was 60% (54%–67%). Meta-regression analysis revealed that time since first atrial fibrillation ( P =0.030) and heart failure ( P =0.045) diagnosis related to higher, whereas absence of known structural heart disease ( P =0.003) to lower incidence of atrial fibrillation recurrences. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly during follow-up by 13% ( P <0.001), with a significant reduction of patients presenting an ejection fraction <35% ( P <0.001). N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide blood levels decreased by 620 pg/mL ( P <0.001).

Conclusions—

AFCA efficacy in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function improves when performed early in the natural history of atrial fibrillation and heart failure. AFCA provides long-term benefits on left ventricular function, significantly reducing the number of patients with severely impaired systolic function.

Rhythm control in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation: contemporary challenges including the role of ablation

Because nonpharmacological interventions likely alter the risks and benefits associated with rhythm control, this paper reviews the role of current rhythm control strategies in atrial fibrillation. This report also focuses on the specific limitations of pharmacological interventions and the utility of percutaneous ablation in this growing population of patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with concomitant left ventricular impairment: a systematic review of efficacy and effect on ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established rhythm control strategy; however, the impact of co-existing LV systolic dysfunction (LVSD) on ablation success is less well understood. This systematic review compiles the outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with LVSD.

METHODS

An electronic database (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase) search using the keywords 'atrial fibrillation AND ablation AND (ventricular dysfunction OR heart failure OR cardiomyopathy)' was performed for English scientific literature up to 01/01/2014. 2484 references were retrieved and evaluated for relevance by three reviewers. Reviews and reference lists of retrieved articles were also examined to ensure all relevant studies were included. Data was extracted from 19 studies, including a total of 914 patients.

RESULTS

Single-procedure success in LVSD patients for AF ablation was 56.5% (95% CI: 48%-64%). Overall multiple-procedure (including the use of anti-arrhythmic drugs) in LVSD patients for AF ablation was 81.8% (95% CI: 75%-87%). The mean increase in LVEF following AF ablation was 13.3% (95% CI: 10.8%-15.9%). Seven studies reported improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life information using standardised criteria. The pooled rate of serious adverse events was 5.5% (95% CI: 3.7%-8.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation may be an effective therapy in AF patients with left ventricular systolic impairment, and can be associated with improvements in left ventricular function, quality of life, exercise capacity, and modest rates of serious adverse events.

Effects of radiofrequency catheter ablation on left ventricular structure and function in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is an effective therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to investigate the effects of RFCA on left ventricular (LV) structure and function in AF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify trials involving changes of LV structure and function in AF patients undergoing RFCA. Effect size was expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), LV end-systolic diameter (LVESD), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were estimated. A total of 21 trials including 1,135 participants were qualified for this meta-analysis. Compared to the baseline values, there were significant decreases in LVEDV (WMD, -6.39 ml; 95%CI, -12.46 to -0.33) and LVESV (WMD, -6.39 ml; 95%CI, -11.35 to -1.42) and a significant improvement in LVEF (WMD, 6.23%; 95%CI, 3.70 to 8.75), but no significant changes were observed in LVEDD (WMD, -0.64 mm; 95%CI, -2.40 to 1.13) and LVESD (WMD, -0.38 mm; 95%CI, -1.32 to 0.56) after RFCA. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with low LVEF (WMD, 11.90%; 95%CI, 9.16 to 14.64) gained more benefits than those with normal LVEF (WMD, 1.56%; 95%CI, 0.38 to 2.74). Besides, patients with chronic AF (WMD, 10.96%; 95%CI, 4.92 to 17.01) improved more than those with paroxysmal AF (WMD, 1.93%; 95%CI, -0.27 to 4.12).

CONCLUSIONS

RFCA in AF patients could reverse LV structural remodeling and improve LV systolic function, especially in patients with low LVEF and chronic AF.