Comparison of the Effect of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation on All-Cause Hospitalization in Patients With Versus Without Heart Failure (from the Nationwide Readmission Database)

Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

PURPOSE

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) has shown promising results in reducing mortality and improving heart function. However, previous studies have been limited by a lack of control groups and significant heterogeneity in their methodologies.

HYPOTHESIS

CA for AF in HFPEF patients may not increase the complications and had similarly the rate of freedom from AF vs. patients without HFPEF, and it may reduce hospitalizations and mortality and improve heart function VS medical treatment.

METHODS

Three groups of AF patients were included in the study: 187 patients with HFPEF for their first CA (AFPHF-CA), 187 patients with HFPEF who were undergoing medical therapy (AFPHF-Med), and 196 patients without HFPEF for their first CA (AF-CA).

RESULTS

After a mean (± SD) follow-up of 36 ± 3 months, 50.8% of patients in the AFPHF-CA group and 52.0% in the AF-CA group remained in sinus rhythm (P = 0.94), compared to only 12.5% in the AFPHF-Med group (P < 0.001). Age (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08, P = 0.016), duration of AF history (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02, P = 0.017), left atrial diameter (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.06-2.19, P = 0.024), and the type of atrial fibrillation (OR: 4.02, 95% CI: 1.28-12.62, P = 0.017) were consistent multivariable predictors for sinus rhythm maintenance in AFPHF. HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the AFPHF-CA group (0.38 (0,2)) than in the AFPHF-Med group (1.28(0,3), P < 0.001) during the follow-up. Stroke occurred in 18 of 187 (9.63%) patients in the AFPHF-CA group, significantly lower than the AFPHF-Med group, with approximately 31 of 187 (16.58%) (P < 0.01), but not statistically different from AF-CA, where approximately 17 of 196 (8.67%) experienced stroke (P = 0.65). Regarding mortality, death occurred in 12.8% of patients in the AFPHF-Med group, higher than 7.5% in the AFPHF-CA group and 6.6% in the AF-CA group (P = 0.49). Significant improvements in heart function were observed in the AFPHF-CA group compared to the AFPHF-Med group, including reductions in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P < 0.001), New York Heart Association classification (P < 0.001), left ventricular mass index (P < 0.001), and left atrial volume index (P < 0.001). HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the AFPHF-CA group compared to AFPHF-Med (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CA for AF has showed significant benefits in patients with HFPEF compared to medical treatment alone. These benefits include improvements in heart function, reduced mortality, incidence of stroke, and hospitalizations. Importantly, CA in HFPEF patients showed comparable maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) and safety outcomes when compared to CA in individuals with normal heart function.

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).

Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Limited data are available on the outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CBA in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AF referred for CBA-based PVI from two highly experienced electrophysiology centres were included in this retrospective study. Of 651 patients undergoing CBA, 471 cases were divided into four groups: No HF (n = 255), HFpEF (n = 101), HFmrEF (n = 78), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n = 37). Similar early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was found among groups (16.2% vs. 15.4% vs. 14.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.798), and no significant difference of long-term sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance was identified among the HFmrEF, HFpEF, and No HF groups (71.8% vs. 75.2% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.334). CBA is safe for patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF with similar complications compared with the No HF group (3.8% vs. 4.0% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.814). The reassessment of cardiac function after CBA showed that patients with HF indicated beneficial outcomes. Left atrial diameter (LAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly improved in the HFmrEF group. There were 41.6% of patients in the HFpEF group who were completely relieved from HF. LAD and New York Heart Association (NYHA) were associated with recurrence in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, and the maintenance of SR was an independent predictor of NYHA improvement for all HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from CBA with high SR maintenance and significant HF improvement.

Safety, Efficacy and Prognostic Benefit of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Up to 65% of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) develop AF during the course of the disease. This occurrence is associated with adverse outcomes, including pump failure death. Because AF and HFpEF are mutually reinforcing risk factors, sinus rhythm restoration may represent a disease-modifying intervention. While catheter ablation exhibits acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, no randomised trials have compared AF ablation with medical management in HFpEF. However, catheter ablation has been reported to result in lower natriuretic peptides, lower filling pressures, greater peak cardiac output and improved functional capacity in HFpEF. There is growing evidence that catheter ablation may reduce HFpEF severity, hospitalisation and mortality compared to medical management. Based on indirect evidence, early catheter ablation and minimally extensive atrial injury should be favoured. Hence, individualised ablation strategies stratified by stepwise substrate inducibility provide a logical basis for catheter-based rhythm control in this heterogenous population. Randomised trials are needed for definitive evidence-based guidelines.

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.

Meta-analysis of the Usefulness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. We performed a literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR; where a RR <1.0 favors the HFpEF group) and mean difference (MD; where MD <0 favors the HFpEF group) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Six studies with a total of 1,505 patients were included, of which 764 (51%) had HFpEF and 741 (49%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF 1 year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared with those with HFrEF (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.76, 1.35). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the HFpEF group (MD -5.42; 95% CI -8.51, -2.34), but there was no significant difference in procedure time (MD 1.74; 95% CI -11.89, 15.37) or periprocedural adverse events between groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54,1.32). There was no significant difference in hospitalizations between groups (MD 1.18; 95% CI 0.90, 1.55), but HFpEF patients experienced significantly less mortality (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.18, 0.94). In conclusion, based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as safe and efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Prognosis, and Management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) have similar risk factors, frequently coexist, and potentiate each other in a vicious cycle. Evidence suggests the presence of AF in both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases the risk of all-cause mortality and stroke, particularly when AF is incident. Catheter ablation may be an effective strategy in controlling symptoms and improving quality of life in AF-HFrEF. Strong data guiding management of AF-HFpEF are lacking largely due to its challenging diagnosis. Improving outcomes associated with these coexistent conditions requires further careful investigation.

Sex-Related Differences in Catheter Ablation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

The coexistence of atrial fibrillation and heart failure significantly increases the risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Sex-related differences in all patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation include the referral of fewer women for catheter ablation (15–25%), older age of women at ablation, and higher risk of post-ablation recurrence of atrial fibrillation. We searched the existing literature for sex-related differences in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation with a focus on heart failure. Randomized controlled trials assessing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in patients with heart failure have demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Within the eight existing randomized controlled trials on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, women composed a small proportion of the study population. Only two studies (CASTLE-AF and AATAC-HF) specifically assessed the effect of gender on outcome and showed no difference in post-ablation outcomes. Registry data-based studies assessing sex-related differences in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in heart failure reveal that women are half as likely as men to undergo ablation. Conflicting data exist on the interaction of gender and heart failure as they may affect peri-ablation and post-ablation long-term outcomes such as atrial fibrillation recurrence or heart failure hospitalizations. In conclusion, existing studies provide insight into the gender-based differences in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation as it pertains to heart failure. Further prospective studies with higher proportions of female participants are required to accurately determine gender-based differences in this population.

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 in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the shared pathology of atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment challenges incurred by the co-occurrence of these increasingly prevalent diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple risk factors and mechanisms have been proposed as potentially linking atrial fibrillation and HFpEF, with systemic inflammation more recently being invoked. Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, and catheter ablation have emerged as alternative treatment options. Other novel pharmacological agents, such as neprilysin inhibitors, need to be studied further in this patient population.

SUMMARY

Atrial fibrillation and HFpEF commonly co-occur because of their shared risk factors and pathophysiology and incur increased morbidity and mortality relative to either condition alone. Although the presence of both diseases can often make each diagnosis difficult, it is important to do so early in the disease course as there are now a variety of treatment options aimed at improving symptoms and quality of life, slowing disease progression, and improving prognosis. However, more research needs to be performed on the role of catheter ablation in this population. Novel pharmacologic and procedural treatment options appear promising and may further improve the treatment options available to this growing population.