Catheter ablation versus conventional treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Review of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines present a synopsis of extensive internal evidence and technology reviews, with a particular focus on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness within the NHS in England. This approach has delivered a novel perspective on arrhythmia management, with important distinctions from other policymakers' recommendations. For example, when compared with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF), NICE advocates unique strategies regarding arrhythmia detection, stroke and bleeding risk stratification, and rhythm control (NICE CG 196). Likewise, for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, NICE TA314 not only recommends device therapy based on New York Heart Association class and ECG findings, but also incorporates quality-adjusted life year data from analysis of key randomised controlled trials.This review examines the NICE guidelines, together with those from the AHA/HRS/ACC and ESC, on the management of AF and ventricular arrhythmias and highlights the key common features and discrepancies between these important documents.

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.

Atrial fibrillation ablation as first-line therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): evaluating the impact on patient survival

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure share several pathophysiological mechanisms. As a result of their association, patients have worse outcomes than if either condition were present alone.

AREAS COVERED

While multiple trials report no significant difference between the use of pharmacological rhythm control and the use of rate control in terms of mortality and morbidity in patients with HFrEF, there is evidence to suggest that catheter ablation is beneficial in this patient population. The present review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of catheter ablation as a treatment modality for atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF as well as evaluate its outcome on survival.

EXPERT OPINION

An appropriate patient selection strategy for patients with HFrEF could be the next step in determining which patients might benefit most from catheter ablation. Future atrial fibrillation management may incorporate digital health and pulsed-field ablation.

Catheter Ablation versus Medical Therapy of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist and synergistically contribute to an increased risk of hospitalization, stroke, and mortality. Objective: To compare the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) versus medical therapy (MT) in HF patients with AF. Methods: Electronic databases were queried for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CA versus MT of AF in patients with HF. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured using the Mantel−Haenszel method. Results: A total of nine RCTs enrolling 2155 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to MT, CA led to a significant reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (24.6% vs. 37.1%; RR: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.53−0.80); p < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (8.8% vs. 13.6%; RR: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51−0.82); p = 0.0005), HF hospitalization (15.4% vs. 22.4%; (RR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54−0.82); p = 0.0001), AF recurrence (31.8% vs. 77.0%; RR: 0.36 (95% CI: 0.24−0.54); p < 0.0001), and cardiovascular (CV) death (4.9% vs. 8.4%; RR: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.39−0.86); p = 0.007). CA improved the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD:4.76% (95% CI: 2.35−7.18); p = 0.0001), 6 min walk test (MD: 20.48 m (95% CI: 10.83−30.14); p < 0.0001), peak oxygen consumption (MD: 3.1 2mL/kg/min (95% CI: 1.01−5.22); p = 0.004), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (MD: −6.98 (95% CI: −12−03, −1.93); p = 0.007), and brain natriuretic peptide levels (MD:−133.94 pg/mL (95% CI: −197.33, −70.55); p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In HF patients, AF catheter ablation was superior to MT in reducing CV and all-cause mortality. Further significant benefits occurred within the ablation group in terms of HF hospitalizations, AF recurrences, the systolic function, exercise capacity, and quality of life.

Improved Survival in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure Undergoing Catheter Ablation Compared to Medical Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Increasing evidence has suggested improved outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing catheter ablation (CA) as compared to medical therapy. We sought to investigate the benefit of CA on outcomes of patients with AF and HF as compared to medical therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials was performed for clinical studies evaluating the benefit of CA for patients with AF and HF. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included atrial-arrhythmia recurrence and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Eight randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2121 patients (mean age: 65 ± 5 years; 72% male). Mean follow-up duration was 32.9 ± 14.5 months. All-cause mortality in patients who underwent CA was significantly lower than in the medical treatment group (8.8% vs. 13.5%, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, P=0.0005). A 35% relative risk reduction and 4.7% absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality was observed with CA. Rates of atrial-arrhythmia recurrence were significantly lower in the CA group (39.9% vs 69.6%, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76, P=0.0003). Improvement in LVEF was significantly higher in patients undergoing CA (+9.4 ±7.6%) as compared to conventional treatment (+3.3±8%) (Mean difference 6.2, 95% CI 3.6-8.8, P<0.00001). Conclusion CA for AF in patients with HF decreases all-cause mortality, improves atrial-arrhythmia recurrence rate and LVEF when compared to medical management. CA should be considered the treatment of choice to improve survival in this select group of patients. Nonetheless, the benefit of CA in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction and NYHA class IV heart failure has not been clearly elucidated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Catheter Ablation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To investigate the association between catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality as well as hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.

METHODS

Patients with first-time catheter ablation for AF (ablation group) compared to only medical treated AF patients (no ablation group) were identified from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry between 2005 and 2019. The primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:2 propensity score (PS) matched cohort and pre-specified EF subgroups (preserved EF [HFpEF] [EF≥50%], mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF] [EF 40% to 49%], reduced EF [HFrEF] [EF<40%]) of this cohort.

RESULTS

452 patients in the ablation and 43766 patients in the no ablation group were identified. After PS matching, 434 patients in the ablation group were compared to 868 patients in the no ablation group. Over a median follow-up of 2.6 years (min. 0.0 years - max. 14.1 years), catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI,0.65-0.94]). Results were consistent across all EF subgroups. In HFpEF, catheter ablation was also associated with a lower risk of recurrent HF hospitalization (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.17 [95%CI,0.07-0.42]).

CONCLUSION

In HF patients across the EF spectrum, catheter ablation for AF was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization). This study supports catheter ablation as a treatment option for AF in HF patients, including those with HFpEF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment. Unlike HFrEF, treatment options are more limited in patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the data pertaining to the management of AF in these patients are controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of CA on outcomes of patients with AF and HFpEF, such as functional status, post-procedural complications, hospitalization, morbidity and mortality, based on data from observational studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for Central Register of Clinical Trials until May 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, the pooling of our data showed that sinus rhythm was achieved long-term in 58.0% (95% CI 0.44-0.71). Long-term AF recurrence was noticed in 22.3% of patients. Admission for HF occurred in 6.2% (95% CI 0.04-0.09) whilst all-cause mortality was identified in 6.3% (95% CI 0.02-0.13).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis is the first to focus on determining the benefits of a rhythm control strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF using CA, suggesting it may be worthwhile to investigate the effects of a CA rhythm control strategy as the default treatment of AF in HFpEF patients in randomized trials.

Ablation Therapy for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of electrical disturbance of the heart and contributes to significant patient morbidity and mortality. With a better understanding of the mechanisms of atrial fibrillation and improvements in mapping and ablation technologies, ablation has become a preferred therapy for patients with symptomatic AF. Pulmonary Vein Isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone for AF ablation therapy, but particularly in patients with AF occurring for longer than 7 days (persistent AF), identifying clinically significant nonpulmonary vein targets and achieving durability of ablation lesions remains an important challenge.

The role of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in patients with heart failure

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic options for patients with AF and HFrEF are limited due to few antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) choices and historically equivocal effects of procedural interventions on mortality. However, recent randomized trials examining catheter ablation (CA) in AF patients with HFrEF have shown a beneficial effect on arrhythmic burden and HF symptoms, as well as an improvement in mortality. This review focuses on the role of CA for AF patients with HFrEF.

Health status measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients with heart failure

Background

Self-reported health status as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has mainly been reported from randomized trials. However, these studies are often limited to short follow-up and are subject to selection bias. The aim of this study was to assess KCCQ-12 in patients with primary prevention ICD due to either ischemic or nonischemic heart failure.

Methods

This cross-sectional observational study included all patients in Region Gävleborg, Sweden, who because of primary prevention due to heart failure, had an ICD or underwent device replacement between 2007 and 2017. After validation using medical records patients were sent and returned the KCCQ-12 by regular mail.

Results

A total of 118 questionnaires were analyzed (response rate 71.1%). The mean age was 70.9 ± 9.8 years, and a minority was female (n = 20, 16.9%). The mean overall summary score was 71.5 ± 22.4, there was no significant difference between ischemic and nonischemic heart failure (69.5 ± 23.1 vs. 74.4 ± 21.3; p = 0.195). Atrial fibrillation at baseline was associated with lower score for the domains Symptom frequency (70.2 ± 23.2 vs. 82.2 ± 19.2; p = 0.006) and Social limitation (62.1 ± 26.0 vs. 75.6 ± 26.6; p = 0.006) as well as the overall summary score (63.9 ± 21.3 vs. 74.8 ± 22.2; p = 0.004).

Conclusion

In a real-world setting, primary prevention ICD patients with heart failure report an acceptable disease-specific health status at long-term follow-up. Ischemic and nonischemic etiology showed similar health status whereas atrial fibrillation was associated with worse outcome.

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

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

Healthcare utilization and cost in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure undergoing catheter ablation

Background

Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). However, little is known about how healthcare utilization and cost change after ablation in this population. We sought to determine healthcare utilization and cost patterns among patients with AF and HF undergoing ablation.

Methods

Using a large United States administrative database, we identified (n = 1568) treated with ablation with a primary and secondary diagnosis of AF and HF, respectively, were evaluated 1‐year pre‐ and postablation for outcomes including inpatient admissions (AF or HF), emergency department (ED) visits, cardioversions, length of stay (LOS), and cost. A secondary analysis was extended to 3‐years postablation.

Results

Reductions were observed in AF‐related admissions (64%), LOS (65%), cardioversions (52%), ED visits (51%, all values, p < .0001), and HF‐related admissions (22%, p = .01). There was a 40% reduction in inpatient admission cost ($4165 preablation to $2510 postablation, p < .0001). In a sensitivity analysis excluding repeat‐ablation patients, a greater reduction in overall AF management cost was observed compared to the full cohort (−43% vs. −2%). Comparing 1‐year pre‐ to 3‐years postablation, both total mean AF‐management cost ($850 per‐patient per‐month 1‐year pre‐ to $546 3‐years postablation, p < .0001) and AF‐related healthcare utilization was reduced.

Conclusions

Catheter ablation in patients with AF and HF resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization and cost through 3‐years of follow‐up. This reduction was observed regardless of whether repeat ablation was performed, reflecting the positive impact of ablation on longer term cost reduction.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: improved systolic function after cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation

Aims

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are the most common cardiac diseases and often coexist leading to increased mortality and morbidity compared with AF patients without HF. As shown previously, AF ablation using radio frequency (RF) in HF patients leads to a reduction of AF burden, an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and consequently to reduced hospitalization and mortality. Previous AF ablation studies on HF patients have been liberal about additional targets beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Thus, the aim of this study was to assess systematically the impact of a straightforward PVI‐only strategy on LVEF, NYHA functional class, and cardiovascular hospitalization rate in HF patients.

Methods and results

Out of 414 consecutive patients undergoing PVI, only with the cryoballoon 113 patients with reduced LVEF [mean: 38.4 ± 10.8%, reduced ejection fraction (rEF) group] and 301 patients with normal LVEF (>55%) at baseline were identified [normal ejection fraction (nEF) group]. Remarkably, even though freedom from arrhythmia recurrence after 1 year was significantly lower in the rEF group (64.9%) compared with the nEF group (71.2%, P = 0.036), mean LVEF improved from 38.4 ± 10.8% to 52.5 ± 17.2% (P < 0.001) after cryoballoon ablation in the rEF group. Accordingly, HF‐related symptoms as well as hospitalization rate declined significantly in the rEF group during follow‐up compared with baseline.

Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that catheter ablation restricted to a straightforward PVI‐only strategy using the cryoballoon leads to improved left ventricular ejection fraction as well as improvement of NYHA functional class and increased freedom from cardiovascular rehospitalization.

Beyond Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Posterior Wall, Vein of Marshall, Coronary Sinus, Superior Vena Cava, and Left Atrial Appendage

The optimal ablation strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation remains controversial. Non-PV triggers have been shown to have a major arrhythmogenic role in these patients. Common sources of non-PV triggers are: posterior wall, left atrial appendage, superior vena cava, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, interatrial septum, crista terminalis/Eustachian ridge, and mitral and tricuspid valve annuli. These sites are targeted empirically in selected cases or if significant ectopy is noted (with or without a drug challenge), to improve outcomes in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. This article focuses on summarizing the current evidence and the approach to mapping and ablation of these frequent non-PV trigger sites.

A Meta-Regression Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure

Background

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) reported improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life using the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLWHFQ), and 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Nonetheless, there was significant heterogeneity not accounted for suggesting that not all HF patients derive the same effect from AF ablation.

Objectives

To evaluate if baseline LVEF or the etiology of the cardiomyopathy would moderate the efficacy of AF ablation.

Methods

We performed random effects meta-regression using the mean baseline LVEF and total percentage of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP) in the placebo arms as moderator variables.

Results

Six trials with a total of 687 patients were included. The baseline LVEF in the control arm of trials ranged from 25% - 42.9%, and the percentage of patients with NICMP within each trial varied from 35% to 100%. When baseline LVEF was used as the moderator variable, no significant change in heterogeneity was observed for any of the outcomes of interest (R2 0.00 - 0.02). However, when controlling for NICMP, heterogeneity dropped substantially for the outcomes of LVEF (I2 44.7%, R2 0.91), and MLWHFQ (I2 0.00%, R2 1.00) but not 6MWT (I2 67.4%, R2 0.00). This indicates that improvement in LVEF and MLWHFQ was greater in the AF ablation group when more patients with NICMP were included in the trials.

Conclusions

In patients with systolic HF, AF ablation may be more beneficial in patients with NICMP.

Gaps in patient-reported outcome measures in randomized clinical trials of cardiac catheter ablation: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cardiac catheter ablation (CCA) and to assess the prevalence, characteristics and reporting standards of clinically relevant patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Electronic database searches of Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and the WHO Trial Registry were conducted in March 2019. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019133086). Of 7125 records identified, 237 RCTs were included for analysis, representing 35 427 patients with a mean age of 59 years. Only 43 RCTs (18%) reported PROMs of which 27 included a generic PROM that measured health-related quality of life (HRQL) necessary to conduct comparative effectiveness research. There was notable under-representation of certain patient groups—only 31% were women and only 8% were of non-Caucasian ethnicity, in trials which reported such data. The reporting standard of PROMs was highly variable with 8–62% adherence against CONSORT PRO-specific items. In summary, PROMs play a crucial role in determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments which primarily offer symptomatic improvement, such as CCA. Their underuse significantly limits evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of treatments. Using CCA as an exemplar, there are additional issues of infrequent assessment, poor reporting and under-representation of many population groups. Greater use of PROMs, and specifically validated HRQL questionnaires, is paramount in giving patients a voice in studies, generating more meaningful comparisons between treatments and driving better patient-centred clinical and policy-level decision-making.

Impact of initial heart failure emergence on clinical outcomes of atrial fibrillation patients in the AFFIRM trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) emergence in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing different treatment strategies has not been studied.

METHODS

AFFIRM trial subjects with no history of HF, without clinical HF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction at enrollment were identified. The principal outcome was time to development of a composite of New York Heart Association class ≥II HF and/or cardiovascular (CV) death. It was compared for rate and rhythm strategies and correlated with electrocardiographic parameters on follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

A total of 1,771 patients (880 rate, 891 rhythm) were evaluated. The principal outcome occurred in 21.4% of rate and 16.8% of rhythm subjects at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.04-1.69, P = .024). HF increment by 2 classes increased total mortality (HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.91-4.18, P < .0001), cardiac mortality, (HR 4.27, 95% CI 2.03-9.04, P = .0001), and CV hospitalizations (HR 3.04, 95% CI 2.15-4.29, P < .0001). HF emergence during FU was associated with AF (P = .0004), ventricular rate >80 beats/min (P = .0106), and higher frequency of recorded AF in the rhythm arm (25%-75% vs <25%, HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09-2.64, P = .020; >75% vs <25%, HR 3.15, 95% CI 1.87-5.34, P =< .001).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) In AF patients without HF, symptomatic HF emergence was more frequent with rate control than with rhythm control. (2) HF appearance presages increased mortality risk. (3) Delaying HF emergence is associated with effective rhythm control with documented sinus rhythm during >75% of FU visits as well as ventricular rate control.

Comparative Therapeutic Assessment of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction-A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation (CA) continues to prove to be an intriguing therapeutic option for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) especially in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Recent data have suggested that CA may be a viable first-line strategy for these patients.

STUDY QUESTION

Is CA more effective in managing patients with AF with HFrEF compared to optimal medical treatment and anti-arrhythmic drugs?

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA, medical treatment, or antiarrhythmic drugs to each other or a placebo group for the treatment of AF in HFrEF. We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library to identify relevant RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and the percentage change in left ventricular ejection fraction. Also, we looked at functional outcomes such as Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and 6-minute walking distance. We used event rates for categorical variables and mean differences between the groups for the continuous variables. We used a frequentist approach employing a graph theory methodology to construct a network meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

We ended up with 17 RCTs with 5460 participants and 5 different treatments in our network meta-analysis. Compared to optimal medical therapy, CA was effective in reducing all-cause mortality odds ratio (OR) 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74; P-value: <0.001) and hospitalization for heart failure OR 0.41 (0.28-0.59; P-value: <0.001). CA also resulted in improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction OR 9.34 (7.13-11.55; P-value: <0.001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire OR -7.75 (-13.98 to -1.52; P-value: <0.01), and 6MWT OR 27.30 (5.27-49.33; P-value: <0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

CA is the most effective and safe treatment for AF patients with HFrEF. We should consider this as a first-line therapy for the management of these patients.

Atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: an updated review of current guidelines and expert consensus documents

Although atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, its management remains complex and depends on several variables. Over the past decade, catheter ablation has been widely used as an effective method for rhythm control in AF patients. Therefore, AF ablation has been the focus of many studies in recent years. Given the complexity of AF management and catheter ablation, several guidelines have been developed to regulate and direct management of AF patients. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC), together with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons (EACTS), has been regulating the European guidelines, while the American Heart Association (AHA), along with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), is publishing the US guidelines. Additionally, HRS, EHRA, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, along with representatives from heart rhythm societies from different parts of the world, have developed an "expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of AF." This article reviews and compares the most recent guidelines and consensus document on AF catheter ablation.

Methodological and Clinical Heterogeneity and Extraction Errors in Meta-Analyses of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure

Background

Meta‐analyses are expected to follow a standardized process, and thus, they have become highly formulaic, although there is little evidence that such regimentation yields high‐quality results.

Methods and Results

This article describes the results of a critical examination of 14 published meta‐analyses of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure that were based on a nearly identical core set of 4 to 6 primary trials. Methodological issues included (1) the neglect of primary data or the failure to report any primary data; (2) the inaccurate recording of the number of randomized patients; (3) the lack of attention to data missingness or baseline imbalances; (4) the failure to contact investigators of primary trials for additional data; (5) the incorrect extraction of data, the misidentification of events, and the assignment of events to the wrong treatment groups; (6) the calculation of summary estimates based on demonstrably heterogenous data, methods of differing reliability, or unrelated end points; and (7) the development of conclusions based on sparse numbers of events or overly reliant on the results of 1 dominant trial.

Conclusions

These findings reinforce existing concerns about the methodological validity of meta‐analyses and their current status in the hierarchy of medical evidence, and they raise new questions about the process by which meta‐analyses undergo peer review by medical journals.

Tackling Patient-Reported Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Identifying Disease-Specific Symptoms?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) both significantly affect morbidity and mortality and also account for high symptom burden and impaired health-related quality of life (hrQoL). Several well-designed and broadly implemented patient-reported outcome instruments are available for both AF and HF and can easily measure hrQoL in each disease process. A better understanding of the diverse phenotypes of AF and HF, as well as the heterogeneous treatment effects of disease-specific interventions, is necessary to further disentangle the complex relationship between symptoms of AF and HF.

Does Left Ventricular Systolic Function Matter? Treating Atrial Fibrillation in HFrEF Versus HFpEF

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) pose international health care challenges that contribute significantly to hospitalizations, morbidity, mortality, and significant health care costs. Both AF and HF contribute to the development of each other and both are associated with a worsened prognosis when they occur together. Assessment of systolic function via transthoracic echocardiography is essential in the investigation of the AF patient. Clinical and echocardiographic assessment may classify AF patients with HF into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-rEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF-pEF). Such classification can assist in numerous important management decisions in AF.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Time to Implement Ablation Control

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure and reduced systolic ejection fraction (HFrEF) is common and associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and managing AF in this population has been particularly challenging with sparse data regarding the optimal treatment strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data suggests that rhythm control with catheter ablation can be of particular benefit to patients with coexisting AF and HFrEF. Recent randomized control trials actually suggest that catheter ablation could potentially improve mortality in this particular patient population. This is in stark contrast to the current practice recommendations that reserve catheter ablation for symptomatic AF in the general population. In this paper, we will review the most current randomized controlled studies using catheter ablation in HFrEF patients with the hope to increase awareness of the potential mortality benefits the need for prioritization of catheter ablation in HFrEF patients in the next AF management guidelines.