Catheter Ablation Versus Medication in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Dysfunction

Atrioventricular Nodal Ablation and Pacing in Refractory Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

Atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) represents a critical intervention in the management of refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). When combined with biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing, particularly His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, this strategy offers distinct and complementary benefits. While each pacing modality presents unique advantages and potential limitations, their combination with AVNA offers a comprehensive and individualized treatment strategy for addressing associated HF. This integrated approach can enhance symptom control, improve hemodynamic performance, and contribute to better long-term outcomes in patients with advanced HF and AF.

Left Atrial Low-Voltage Zone Assessment and Voltage-Guided Ablation Outcome in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation-Induced Tachycardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC) undergoing catheter ablation have similar or even better outcomes than patients without TIC. Data regarding atrial substrate remodeling are scarce in cases of TIC. We assessed regional distribution of left atrial (LA) bipolar voltage, the extent of low-voltage zones (LVZs), and outcomes of voltage-guided ablation in AF patients with and without TIC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In all, 139 patients with persistent AF presenting for a first voltage-guided catheter ablation were enrolled, 61 with TIC and 78 with structurally normal hearts. LA voltage maps were obtained using a 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping system in sinus rhythm. LVZ was defined as <0.5 mV. Compared with non-TIC patients, TIC patients had a lower indexed LA volume (median [interquartile range] 58.6 [50.6-68.7] vs. 63.4 [60.1-76.1] mL/m2; P<0.01) and higher LA voltage (2.3 [1.5-2.8] vs. 1.7 [1-2.6] mV; P=0.02). LVZs were less frequently found in patients with than without TIC (8 [13.1%] vs. 30 [39%]; P<0.01). There was no significant difference in atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT)-free survival rate over a 36-month follow-up between the 2 groups (log-rank test, P=0.176). No predictor of AT recurrence was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

TIC patients exhibit less LA substrate remodeling with a smaller LA volume, higher bipolar voltage, and fewer LVZs than non-TIC patients. They have a similar favorable outcome after a single procedure.

Spotlight on the 2024 ESC/EACTS management of atrial fibrillation guidelines: 10 novel key aspects

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) have recently released the 2024 guidelines for the management of AF. This review highlights 10 novel aspects of the ESC/EACTS 2024 Guidelines. The AF-CARE framework is introduced, a structural approach that aims to improve patient care and outcomes, comprising of four pillars: [C] Comorbidity and risk factor management, [A] Avoid stroke and thromboembolism, [R] Reduce symptoms by rate and rhythm control, and [E] Evaluation and dynamic reassessment. Additionally, graphical patient pathways are provided to enhance clinical application. A significant shift is the new emphasis on comorbidity and risk factor control to reduce AF recurrence and progression. Individualized assessment of risk is suggested to guide the initiation of oral anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism. New guidance is provided for anticoagulation in patients with trigger-induced and device-detected sub-clinical AF, ischaemic stroke despite anticoagulation, and the indications for percutaneous/surgical left atrial appendage exclusion. AF ablation is a first-line rhythm control option for suitable patients with paroxysmal AF, and in specific patients, rhythm control can improve prognosis. The AF duration threshold for early cardioversion was reduced from 48 to 24 h, and a wait-and-see approach for spontaneous conversion is advised to promote patient safety. Lastly, strong emphasis is given to optimize the implementation of AF guidelines in daily practice using a patient-centred, multidisciplinary and shared-care approach, with the simultaneous launch of a patient version of the guideline.

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.

Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure Subtypes

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation (CA) improves clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of CA on clinical and quality-of-life outcomes across HF subtypes.

METHODS

All patients undergoing AF ablation at a tertiary center were enrolled in a prospective registry and included in this study (2013-2021). The primary end point was AF recurrence. Secondary end points included AF-related hospitalizations and quality-of-life outcomes. Patients were categorized according to their HF status: no HF, HFrEF, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

RESULTS

A total of 7020 patients were included (80% no HF, 8% HFrEF, 7% HFmrEF, and 5% HFpEF). Over 3 years, the cumulative incidence of AF recurrence after ablation was as follows: HFpEF (53%), HFmrEF (41%), HFrEF (41%), and no HF (34%); P<0.01. Multivariable Cox analyses confirmed these findings using no HF group as reference (HFpEF: hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.21-1.78]; HFmrEF: hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.45]; and HFrEF: hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.01-1.37]; P<0.05 for all). In all groups, CA resulted in a significant reduction of AF-related hospitalization (mean rate per 1 patient-years [before and after CA]; HFpEF [1.8 versus 0.3], HFmrEF [1.1 versus 0.2], HFrEF [1.1 versus 0.2], and no HF [1 versus 0.1]; P<0.01 for each comparison) and significant improvement in quality of life as measured by both the AF symptom severity score and the AF burden score (P<0.01 for the comparison between baseline and follow-up for each score when tested separately).

CONCLUSIONS

AF recurrence rates after CA were higher in patients with HF compared with those without HF, with patients with HFpEF being at the highest risk of recurrence. Nonetheless, CA was associated with a significant reduction in AF symptoms, AF-related hospitalization, and HF symptoms in most patients irrespective of HF subtypes.

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.

2023 Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased exponentially in many developed countries, including Australia and New Zealand. This Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation from the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) recognises healthcare factors, expertise and expenditure relevant to the Australian and New Zealand healthcare environments including considerations of potential implications for First Nations Peoples. The statement is cognisant of international advice but tailored to local conditions and populations, and is intended to be used by electrophysiologists, cardiologists and general physicians across all disciplines caring for patients with AF. They are also intended to provide guidance to healthcare facilities seeking to establish or maintain catheter ablation for AF.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure With Reduced vs Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Catheter ablation is associated with reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in select patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the benefit in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate whether catheter ablation for AF is associated with reduced HF-related outcomes according to HF phenotype.

Data Source

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted among studies published from inception to September 2023.

Study Selection

Parallel-group randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with conventional rate or rhythm control therapies in patients with HF, New York Heart Association functional class II or greater, and a history of paroxysmal or persistent AF were included. Pairs of independent reviewers screened 7531 titles and abstracts, of which 12 RCTs and 4 substudies met selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Interaction P values were used to test for subgroup differences.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HF events, defined as HF hospitalization, clinically significant worsening of HF, or unscheduled visits to a clinician for treatment intensification. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs with 2465 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.7] years; 658 females [26.7%]) were included; there were 1552 participants with HFrEF and 913 participants with HFpEF. Compared with conventional rate or rhythm control, catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of HF events in HFrEF (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), while there was no benefit in patients with HFpEF (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32) (P for interaction = .03). Catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared with conventional therapies in HFrEF (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70) but a differential association was not detected in HFpEF (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) (P for interaction = .12). Similarly, no difference in the association of catheter ablation with all-cause mortality was found between HFrEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86) and HFpEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.30) groups (P for interaction = .39).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that catheter ablation for AF was associated with reduced risk of HF events in patients with HFrEF but had limited or no benefit in HFpEF. Results from ongoing trials may further elucidate the role of catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF.

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 .

Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis

To investigate the effect of ablation compared to medical therapy on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using ablation, medical treatment, AF, and related words. The effect of ablation and medical therapy was sought to be gathered on stroke or transitional ischemic attack, mortality, hospitalization, recurrence of AF, progression of AF, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Analyses were performed using R software. 31 studies (the results of 27 randomized controlled trials), compromising an overall 6965 patients (Ablation, n = 3643; Medical treatment, n = 3322) were reviewed in our study, revealed that catheter ablation would result in substantial benefits for patients with AF without significant difference in serious adverse events compared to medical management (Risk Ratio: 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.64-1.33]). Catheter ablation in patients with AF significantly resulted in a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71, [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]), a 57% reduction in hospitalization (RR: 0.43, [95% CI, 0.27-0.67]), a 53% reduction in AF recurrence (RR: 0.47, [95% CI, 0.36-0.61]), and a dramatic reduction, 89%, in progression of paroxysmal to persistent AF (RR: 0.11, [95% CI, 0.02-0.65]); also associated with a remarkable improvement in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (Mean Difference, MD: 6.84%, [95% CI, 3.27-10.42]) compared to medical therapy. Our study showed that ablation may be superior to medical therapy in patients with AF regarding AF recurrence, mortality, LVEF improvement, hospitalization, and AF progression outcomes.

The impact of catheter ablation in patient's heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent trial data suggest a benefit to catheter ablation (CA) compared to medical therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, because of mixed trial evidence, contemporary guidelines give it a class 2 recommendation. Accordingly, we sought to assess the currently available evidence for CA in HF with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CA to medical therapy in patients with AF and HF. Study data was pooled using fixed and random effects, and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated to gauge absolute risk differences. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Nine trials (CA 1075 patients; medical therapy 1083 patients) were included. Ablation reduced the relative risk of all-cause mortality by 31.5% (95% CI 13.7 to 45.6%; NNT = 23), cardiovascular mortality by 39.3% (95% CI 10.9 to 58.7%; NNT = 31), cardiovascular hospitalization by 29.1% (95% CI 9.4 to 44.6%; NNT = 9), and heart failure hospitalization by 28.5% (95% CI 6.5 to 45.4%; NNT = 22). Improvements in quality of life were observed with CA using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference - 5.26; 95% CI - 2.73 to - 7.78) and the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (mean difference 5.36; 95% CI 2.72 to 8.00).

CONCLUSION

Compared to medical therapy, CA for AF in patients with HF reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations, and may improve quality of life.

Catheter Ablation for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation: An Update of the Literature

Catheter ablation has been shown to be more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm and improving quality of life when compared to antiarrhythmic drugs. Radiofrequency and cryoablation are two effective methods. However, catheter-only ablation strategies have not consistently produced high success rates in treating longstanding and persistent AF patients. The emerging treatment of choice for such cases is hybrid ablation, which involves a multidisciplinary and minimally invasive approach to achieve surgical ablation of the direct posterior left atrial wall in combination with endocardial catheter ablation. Studies have shown promising results for the hybrid approach when compared with catheter ablation alone, but it is not without risks. Large and randomised studies are necessary to further evaluate these strategies for managing AF.

Impact of Residual Functional Mitral Regurgitation After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) negatively impacts the prognosis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). Although structural reverse remodeling after AF ablation can reduce FMR severity, the prognostic impact of FMR and its evolution remain unclear. Of 491 patients with baseline LVEF <50% who underwent first-time AF ablation, 134 patients (27%) had grade 2 to 4 FMR at baseline. Among them, 88 patients (66%) exhibited FMR improvement to grade 0 to 1 FMR 6 months after AF ablation. Conversely, among 357 with baseline grade 0 to 1 FMR, 13 patients (3.6%) exhibited FMR worsening to grade 2 to 4 FMR despite AF ablation. Assessment with multidetector computed tomography revealed that an increase in the left atrial emptying fraction (odds ratio 3.55 per 10% increase; 95% confidence interval 2.12 to 5.95) and a reduction in the LV end-diastolic volume index (1.35 per 10-ml/m² decrease; 1.04 to 1.76) were identified as contributors to the FMR improvement. During a follow-up of 43 months, patients with postprocedural grade 2 to 4 FMR more frequently experienced hospitalizations for heart failure or cardiovascular death than those with grade 0 to 1 FMR (30.5% vs 4.6%, log-rank p <0.001). An age-adjusted multivariate Cox regression analysis including baseline and postprocedural FMR revealed that postprocedural grade 2 to 4 FMR (hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 7.35) was significantly associated with unfavorable events. In conclusion, AF ablation modified and often improved FMR severity in patients with reduced LVEF. Residual grade 2 to 4 FMR 6 months after AF ablation was associated with a poor prognosis.

Catheter ablation vs. drug therapy in the treatment of atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure: An update meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist. The treatment of AF in patients with HF has been challenging because of the ongoing debate about the merits of catheter ablation vs. drug therapy.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched until June 14, 2022. Inclusion criteria were catheter ablation compared with drug therapy in adults with AF and HF in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes consisted of all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and AF recurrence. Secondary outcomes referred to quality of life [QoL; measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ)], six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and adverse events. The PROSPERO registration ID was CRD42022344208.

Findings

In total, nine RCTs with 2,100 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 1,062 for catheter ablation and 1,038 for medication. According to the meta-analysis, catheter ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with drug therapy [9.2% vs. 14.1%, OR: 0.62, (95% CI: 0.47-0.82), P = 0.0007, I 2   = 0%], improved LVEF [MD: 5.65%, (95% CI: 3.32-7.98), P < 0.00001, I 2   = 86%], reduced AF recurrence [41.6% vs. 61.9%, OR: 0.23, (95% CI: 0.11-0.48), P < 0.0001, I 2   = 82%], decreased the MLHFQ score [MD: -6.38, (95% CI: -11.09 to -1.67), P = 0.008, I2  = 64%] and increased 6MWD [MD: 17.55, (95% CI: 15.77-19.33), P < 0.0001, I 2   = 37%]. Catheter ablation did not increase the re-hospitalization [30.4% vs. 35.5%, OR: 0.68, (95% CI: 0.42-1.10), P = 0.12, I 2   = 73%] and adverse events [31.5% vs. 30.9%, OR: 1.06, (95% CI: 0.83-1.35), P = 0.66, I 2   = 48%].

Interpretation

In AF patients with HF, catheter ablation improves exercise tolerance, QoL, and LVEF and significantly reduced all-cause mortality and AF recurrence. Although the differences were not statistically significant, the study found lower re-hospitalization and approximate adverse events with improved catheter ablation tendency.

PROSPERO registration ID

CRD42022344208.

Increasing time between first diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and catheter ablation adversely affects long-term outcomes in patients with and without structural heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia often comorbid with systolic or diastolic heart failure (HF). Catheter ablation is a more effective treatment for AF with concurrent left ventricular dysfunction, however, the optimal timing of use in these patients is unknown.

METHODS

All patients that received a catheter ablation for AF(n = 9979) with 1 year of follow-up within the Intermountain Healthcare system were included. Patients with were identified by the presence of structural disease by ejection fraction (EF): EF ≤ 35% (n = 1024) and EF > 35% (n = 8955). Recursive partitioning categories were used to separate patients into clinically meaningful strata based upon time from initial AF diagnosis until ablation: 30-180(n = 2689), 2:181-545(n = 1747), 3:546-1825(n = 2941), and 4:>1825(n = 2602) days.

RESULTS

The mean days from AF diagnosis to first ablation was 3.5 ± 3.8 years (EF > 35%: 3.5 ± 3.8 years, EF ≤ 35%: 3.4 ± 3.8 years, p = .66). In the EF > 35% group, delays in treatment (181-545 vs. 30-180, 546-1825 vs. 30-180, >1825 vs. 30-180 days) increased the risk of death with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.02(p < .0001), 2.62(p < .0001), and 4.39(p < .0001) respectively with significant risks for HF hospitalization (HR:1.44-3.69), stroke (HR:1.11-2.14), and AF recurrence (HR:1.42-1.81). In patients with an EF ≤ 35%, treatment delays also significantly increased risk of death (HR 2.07-3.77) with similar trends in HF hospitalization (HR:1.63-1.09) and AF recurrence (HR:0.79-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Delays in catheter ablation for AF resulted in increased all-cause mortality in all patients with differential impact observed on HF hospitalization, stroke, and AF recurrence risks by baseline EF. These data favor earlier use of ablation for AF in patients with and without structural heart disease.

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.

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

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

Electrical management of heart failure: from pathophysiology to treatment

Electrical disturbances, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), dyssynchrony, tachycardia, and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), are present in most patients with heart failure (HF). While these disturbances may be the consequence of HF, increasing evidence suggests that they may also cause or aggravate HF. Animal studies show that longer-lasting left bundle branch block, tachycardia, AF, and PVCs lead to functional derangements at the organ, cellular, and molecular level. Conversely, electrical treatment may reverse or mitigate HF. Clinical studies have shown the superiority of atrial and pulmonary vein ablation for rhythm control and AV nodal ablation for rate control in AF patients when compared with medical treatment. Ablation of PVCs can also improve left ventricular function. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established adjunct therapy currently undergoing several interesting innovations. The current guideline recommendations reflect the safety and efficacy of these ablation therapies and CRT, but currently, these therapies are heavily underutilized. This review focuses on the electrical treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We believe that the team of specialists treating an HF patient should incorporate an electrophysiologist in order to achieve a more widespread use of electrical therapies in the management of HFrEF and should also include individual conditions of the patient, such as body size and gender in therapy fine-tuning.

Life-Years Lost After Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure

Objective

Prior work estimated excess death rates associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) with hazard ratios (HR). The aim was to estimate the life-years lost after newly diagnosed AF in HF patients.

Methods

Among patients diagnosed with HF in 2008–2018 in the nationwide Danish Heart Failure Registry, we compared patients with incident AF to referents matched on age, sex, and time since HF. We estimated the marginal hazard ratio (HR) for death and marginal difference in restricted mean survival times (RMST) between AF cases and referents at 10 years after AF diagnosis. We adjusted for sex, age at AF diagnosis, clinical and lifestyle risk factors, and medications.

Results

Among 4463 AF cases and 17,792 referents (mean age 73.7 years, 29% women), the HR was 1.41 (95% CI 1.38; 1.44) but there was evidence of non-proportional hazards. The difference in RMST was −18.2 months (95% CI −16.8; −19.6) at 10 years after AF diagnosis. There were differences in life-years lost between patients diagnosed with AF >1 year and ≤1 year after HF (−25.7 months, 95% CI −23.7; −27.7 vs −10.4 months, 95% CI −8.2; −12.5, p < 0.001), women and men (−20.3 months, 95% CI −17.7; −21.9 vs −17.2 months, 95% CI −15.5; −19.0, p = 0.05), patients with low, medium, and high CHA₂DS₂-VASc (10.3 months, 95% CI −4.6; −16.1 vs −18.5 months, 95% CI −16.7; −20.4 vs 22.1, 95% CI −18.8; −22.3, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

HF patients with incident AF lost on average 1.5 life-years over 10 years after AF. Life-years lost were larger among patients diagnosed with AF >1 year after HF, women, and patients with higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc.

Cryoballoon Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Concomitant Heart Failure and Either Reduced or Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Results From the Cryo AF Global Registry

Background Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist; yet, outcomes of ablation in patients with AF and concomitant HF are limited. This analysis assessed outcomes of cryoablation in patients with AF and HF. Methods and Results The Cryo AF Global Registry is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients with AF who were treated with cryoballoon ablation according to routine practice at 56 sites in 26 countries. Patients with baseline New York Heart Association class I to III (HF cohort) were compared with patients without HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence ≥30 seconds, safety, and health care utilization over 12-month follow-up were analyzed. A total of 1303 patients (318 HF) were included. Patients with HF commonly had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (81.6%), were more often women (45.6% versus 33.6%) with persistent AF (25.8% versus 14.3%), and had a larger left atrial diameter (4.4±0.9 versus 4.0±0.7 cm). Serious procedure-related complications occurred in 4.1% of patients with HF and 2.6% of patients without HF (P=0.188). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was not different between cohorts with either paroxysmal AF (84.2% [95% CI, 78.6-88.4] versus 86.8% [95% CI, 84.2-89.0]) or persistent AF (69.6% [95% CI, 58.1-78.5] versus 71.8% [95% CI, 63.2-78.7]) (P=0.319). After ablation, a reduction in AF-related symptoms and antiarrhythmic drug use was observed in both cohorts (HF and no-HF), and freedom from repeat ablation was not different between cohorts. Persistent AF and HF predicted a post-ablation cardiovascular rehospitalization (P=0.032 and P=0.001, respectively). Conclusions Cryoablation to treat patients with AF is similarly effective at 12 months in patients with and without HF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02752737.