A new prediction model for left ventricular systolic function recovery after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

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.

Biomarkers to predict improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction after atrial fibrillation ablation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure frequently coexist. Prediction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after catheter ablation (CA) for AF remains difficult.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of biomarkers, alone and in combination with the Antwerp score, to predict LVEF recovery after CA for AF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CA for AF with depressed LVEF (<50%) were included. Plasma levels of 13 biomarkers were measured immediately before CA. Patients were categorized into "responders" and "nonresponders" in a similar fashion to the Antwerp score performance derivation and validation cohorts. The predictive power of the biomarkers alone and combined in outcome prediction was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients with depressed LVEF were included (median age 63 years; 39-19% female; median indexed left atrial volume 42 (33-52) mL/m2; median LVEF 43 (38-46)%). At a median follow-up time of 30 (20-34) months, 161 (77%) were responders and 47 (23%) were nonresponders. Of 13 biomarkers, -4-angiopoietin 2 (ANG2), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), fibroblast growth factor 23, and myosin binding protein C3-were significantly different between responders and nonresponders (P ≤ .001) and their combination could predict the end point with an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.81) overall, 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.78) in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-0.98) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only ANG2 and GDF15 remained significantly associated with LVEF recovery after adjustment for age, sex, and Antwerp score and significantly improved the accuracy of the Antwerp score predictions (P < .001). The area under the curve of the Antwerp score in the outcome prediction improved from 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.83) to 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86).

CONCLUSION

A biomarker panel (ANG2 and GDF15) significantly improved the accuracy of the Antwerp score.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Focus on the Latest Clinical Evidence

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure are two common cardiovascular conditions that frequently coexist, and it has been widely demonstrated that in patients with chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. Nevertheless, there is no unanimous consensus in the literature on how to approach this category of patients and which therapeutic strategy (rhythm control or frequency control) is the most favorable in terms of prognosis; moreover, there is still a lack of data comparing the different ablative techniques of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy, and many of the current trials do not consider current ablative techniques such as high-power short-duration ablation index protocol for radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Eventually, while several RCTs have widely proved that in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, ablation of atrial fibrillation is superior to medical therapy alone, there is no consensus regarding those with preserved ejection fraction. For these reasons, in this review, we aim to summarize the main updated evidence guiding clinical decision in this complex scenario, with a special focus on the most recent trials and the latest meta-analyses that examined the role of catheter ablation (CA) in rhythm control in patients with AF and HF.

Risk factors for tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy due to atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC) is a reversible cardiomyopathy with ventricular dysfunction caused by tachyarrhythmias. Notably, atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common causal arrhythmia leading to TIC. However, the risk factors for the development of TIC due to AF remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the associated factors of TIC due to AF.

METHODS

Persistent AF patients with heart rate (HR) ≥100 beats per minute who underwent initial catheter ablation were enrolled in this study. TIC was diagnosed as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% during AF rhythm, which was recovered after the restoration of sinus rhythm. Non-TIC was defined as LVEF ≥ 50% despite AF rhythm. The patient backgrounds were compared between the TIC group and the non-TIC group to reveal the contributing factors of TIC.

RESULTS

The TIC group comprised 57 patients, while the non-TIC group consisted of 101 patients. The TIC group was younger than the non-TIC group (median 64 vs. 70, p = 0.006). Male sex was more frequent in the TIC group than the non-TIC group (82.5% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.003). HR was higher in the TIC group than in the non-TIC group (median 130 bpm vs. 111 bpm, p < 0.001). The number of smokers was significantly higher in the TIC group than in the non-TIC group (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that higher HR (odds ratio [OR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-2.21; p < 0.001) and current smokers (OR: 5.27; 95% CI: 1.60-17.4; p = 0.006) were the independent factors leading to TIC.

CONCLUSION

Higher HR and current smokers were independent risk factors for the development of TIC due to AF.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

Definition and management of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: findings from the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

AIMS

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM) represents a subtype of acute heart failure (HF) in the context of sustained arrhythmia. Clear definitions and management recommendations for AiCM are lacking. The European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee (EHRA SIC) conducted a survey to explore the current definitions and management of patients with AiCM among European and non-European electrophysiologists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A 25-item online questionnaire was developed and distributed among EP specialists on the EHRA SIC website and on social media between 4 September and 5 October 2023. Of the 206 respondents, 16% were female and 61% were between 30 and 49 years old. Most of the respondents were EP specialists (81%) working at university hospitals (47%). While most participants (67%) agreed that AiCM should be defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) impairment after new onset of an arrhythmia, only 35% identified a specific LVEF drop to diagnose AiCM with a wide range of values (5-20% LVEF drop). Most respondents considered all available therapies: catheter ablation (93%), electrical cardioversion (83%), antiarrhythmic drugs (76%), and adjuvant HF treatment (76%). A total of 83% of respondents indicated that adjuvant HF treatment should be started at first HF diagnosis prior to antiarrhythmic treatment, and 84% agreed it should be stopped within six months after LVEF normalization. Responses for the optimal time point for the first LVEF reassessment during follow-up varied markedly (1 day-6 months after antiarrhythmic treatment).

CONCLUSION

This EHRA Survey reveals varying practices regarding AiCM among physicians, highlighting a lack of consensus and heterogenous care of these patients.

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

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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 .

New Score for Predicting Results after Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: VAT-DHF

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been proven to have the highest efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm. Several studies have proposed different scores for predicting post-procedural success, but most have not been validated in prospective cohorts. Further research is required to determine the optimal formulae.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify independent predictors of AF recurrence after CA and develop a composite score.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with persistent and paroxysmal AF who underwent CA were retrospectively analyzed. The independent predictors of recurrence were used to create a new predictive score.

RESULTS

The cohort included 263 patients with a follow-up of 37.6 ± 23.4 months. Persistent AF, f-waves < 0.1 mV, indexed left atrium volume, the presence of type 2 diabetes, and smaller height were independent predictors of recurrence and were used to create a new scoring model, VAT-DHF (V = Volume, AT = AF Type, D = Diabetes, H = Height, F = f waves). The ROC curve for this new score showed an AUC of 0.869, p < 0.0001, 95% CI [0.802-0.936], while those for APPLE and CHA2DS2-VASc showed an AUC of 0.765, 95% CI [0.637-0.893] and an AUC of 0.655, 95% CI [0.580-0.730], respectively. Patients who had a VAT-DHF score between 0 and 3.25, 3.25 and 6, and ≥6, had success rates of 95.7%, 76.3%, and 25% (p < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel VAT-DHF score is easy to calculate and may be a useful clinical tool for identifying patients with a low, intermediate, or high risk of AF recurrence after CA.

Benefit of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Patients with Different Etiologies

(1) Background: A plethora of studies have elucidated the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) for patients afflicted with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nevertheless, the literature on the benefits of CA in the specific etiological context of heart failure (HF) remains limited. This study delineates a comparative assessment of outcomes for patients with AF and reduced LVEF across the primary etiologies. (2) Methods: Our inquiry encompassed 216 patients diagnosed with congestive heart failure and an LVEF of less than 50 percent who were referred to our institution for circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) between the years 2016 and 2020. The selection criteria included a detailed medical history while excluding those suffering from valvular disease, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In an effort to scrutinize varying etiologies, patients were stratified into three categories: dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM, n = 56, 30.6%), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 68, 37.2%), and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC, n = 59, 32.2%). (3) Results: Following an average (±SD) duration of 36 ± 3 months, the prevalence of sinus rhythm was 52.1% in the DCM group, 50.0% in the ICM group, and 68.14% in the TIC group (p = 0.014). This study revealed a significant disparity between the DCM and TIC groups (p = 0.021) and the ICM and TIC groups (p = 0.007), yet no significant distinction was discerned between the TIC and ICM groups (p = 0.769). Importantly, there were no significant variations in the application of antiarrhythmic drugs or recurrence of procedures among the three groups. The mortality rates were 14.29% for the DCM group and 14.71% for the ICM group, which were higher than the 3.39% observed in the TIC group (DCM vs. TIC p = 0.035 (HR = 4.50 (95%CI 1.38-14.67)), ICM vs. TIC p = 0.021 (HR = 5.00 (95%CI 1.61-15.50))). A noteworthy enhancement in heart function was evidenced in the TIC group in comparison to the DCM and ICM groups, including a higher LVEF (p < 0.001), diminution of LV end-diastolic diameter (p < 0.001), and an enhanced New York Heart Association classification (p = 0.005). Hospitalization rates for heart failure were discernibly lower in TIC patients (0.98 (0,2) times) relative to those with DCM (1.74 (0,3) times, p < 0.01) and TIC (1.78 (0,4) times, p < 0.001). Patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and brief episodes were found to achieve superior clinical outcomes through a catheter ablation strategy. (4) Conclusion: Patients diagnosed with TIC demonstrated a more pronounced benefit from catheter ablation compared to those with DCM and ICM. This encompassed an augmented improvement in cardiac function, an enhanced maintenance of sinus rhythm, and a reduced mortality rate.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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