Sudden death after radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node in patients with atrial fibrillation

Immediate changes in depolarization and repolarization after left bundle branch area pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation

BACKGROUND

Malignant arrhythmia due to ventricular depolarization and repolarization alterations after atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is a known clinical entity. Here, we aimed to demonstrate the ventricular depolarization and repolarization changes in patients who underwent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and AVN ablation.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective preliminary study (n = 10). All patients underwent single-chamber pacemaker implantation with LBBaP before the AVN ablation procedure. Electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters [QRS duration (QRSd), QTc (Fridericia formula), Tp-e, and JT interval] were measured and analyzed before and after the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 ± 8.88 years, and 70 % of the patients were female. 60 % of the patients had AF, and 40 % of them had atrial tachycardia during the procedures. Eight patients had undergone more than two catheter ablations before the procedure. The QT interval (263.47 ± 26.79 vs. 416.14 ± 36.31 msec) and QRSd (93.3 ± 7.3 vs. 122.32 ± 21.16 msec) were prolonged when the patient's ECG parameters were analyzed. Still, the Tp-Te interval (75.57 ± 18.62 vs. 80.93 ± 17.35 msec) did not change, and the QTc (Fridericia formula) interval (425 ± 29.82 vs. 461.70 ± 35.33 msec) did not show a significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Malignant arrhythmia may occur due to ventricular depolarization and repolarization changes after the AVN ablation procedure. This study showed no significant change in Tp-e and QTc durations previously defined for malignant arrhythmia development. At the same time, JT time, which indicates ventricular repolarization duration, did not show a significant difference. LBBaP is more physiological and safer for patients planning to undergo AVN ablation.

Atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation in the era of conduction system pacing

Despite key advances in catheter-based treatments, the management of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a therapeutic challenge in a significant subset of patients. While success rates have improved with repeat AF ablation procedures and the concurrent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, the likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm during long-term follow-up is still limited. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) has returned as a valuable treatment option given the recent developments in cardiac pacing. With the advent of conduction system pacing, AVNA has seen a revival where pacing-induced cardiomyopathy after AVNA is felt to be overcome. This review will discuss the role of permanent pacemaker implantation and AVNA for AF management in this new era of conduction system pacing. Specifically, this review will discuss the haemodynamic consequences of AF and the mechanisms through which 'pace-and-ablate therapy' enhances outcomes, analyse historical and more recent literature across various pacing methods, and work to identify patient groups that may benefit from earlier implementation of this approach.

Acute and long-term outcomes of left-sided atrioventricular node ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

To present our experience regarding acute and long-term outcomes of left-sided atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A total of 47 patients with AF in whom left-sided AVN ablation via retroaortic approach as a first-line approach were enrolled in this retrospective study. Indications for AVN ablation were high ventricular rate refractory to medical therapy, inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks, or loss of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing. Both acute and long-term outcomes were assessed for all participants.

RESULTS

Left-sided AVN ablation was successfully performed in 46/47 (98%) patients without any procedural complication. In the remaining 1 patient (2%), right-sided AVN ablation was performed. No mortality was observed within 30 days of the procedure. Upgrade to CRT was performed in 9 (19%) of the patients. During the median 22.5 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was 25%. Device interrogations on the last clinical visit revealed complete AV block and intrinsic ventricular rate of < 40 bpm in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Left-sided AVN ablation is a safe and effective procedure without recurrence during long-term follow-up.

Outcomes of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is beneficial in selected patients with heart failure (HF) in normal sinus rhythm (NSR). We sought to evaluate the impact of CRT with or without atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation in patients with HF with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods and results

Literature was searched (inception through 30 August 2017) for observational studies that reported outcomes in patients with HF with CRT and AF that reported all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Thirty-one studies with 83, 571 patients were included. CRT did not decrease mortality compared with internal cardioverter defibrillator or medical therapy alone in patients with HF and AF with indications for CRT (OR: 0.851, 95% CI 0.616 to 1.176, p=0.328, I2=86.954). CRT-AF patients had significantly higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than CRT-NSR patients ([OR: 1.472, 95% CI 1.301 to 1.664, p=0.000] and [OR: 1.857, 95% CI 1.350 to 2.554, p=0.000] respectively). Change in left ventricular ejection fraction was not different between CRT patients with and without AF (p=0.705). AVJ ablation, however, improved all-cause mortality in CRT-AF patients when compared with CRT-AF patients without AVJ ablation (OR: 0.485, 95% CI 0.247 to 0.952, p=0.035). With AVJ ablation, there was no difference in all-cause mortality in CRT-AF patients compared with CRT-NSR patients (OR: 1.245, 95% CI 0.914 to 1.696, p=0.165).

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that AF was associated with decreased CRT benefits in patients with HF. CRT, however, benefits patients with AF with AVJ ablation.

Clinical predictors of challenging atrioventricular node ablation procedure for rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is usually a simple procedure but may sometimes be challenging. We aimed at identifying pre-procedural clinical predictors of challenging AVN ablation.

METHODS

Patients referred for AVN ablation from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively included. Baseline clinical data, procedural variables and outcomes of AVN ablation were collected. A "challenging procedure" was defined 1) total radiofrequency delivery to get persistent AVN block≥400s, 2) need for left-sided arterial approach or 3) failure to obtain AVN ablation.

RESULTS

200 patients were included (71±10years). A total of 37 (18.5%) patients had "challenging" procedures (including 9 failures, 4.5%), while 163 (81.5%) had "non-challenging" ablations. In multivariable analysis, male sex (Odds ratio (OR)=4.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.74-12.46), body mass index (BMI, OR=1.08 per 1kg/m², 95%CI 1.01-1.16), operator experience (OR=0.40, 95%CI 0.17-0.94), and moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR, OR=3.65, 95%CI 1.63-8.15) were significant predictors of "challenging" ablations. The proportion as a function of number of predictors was analyzed (from 0 to 4, including male sex, operator inexperience, a BMI>23.5kg/m² and moderate-to-severe TR). There was a gradual increase in the risk of "challenging" procedure with the number of predictors by patient (No predictor: 0%; 1 predictor: 6.3%; 2 predictors: 16.5%; 3 predictors: 32.5%; 4 predictors: 77.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Operator experience, male sex, higher BMI and the degree of TR were independent predictors of "challenging" AVN ablation procedure. The risk increases with the number of predictors by patient.

Atrioventricular Junction Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation is an effective therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation who are intolerant to or unsuccessfully managed with rhythm control or medical rate control strategies. A drawback is that the procedure mandates a pacing system. Overall, the safety and efficacy of AVJ ablation is high with a majority of the patients reporting significant improvement in symptoms and quality-of-life measures. Risk of sudden cardiac death after device implantation is low, especially with an appropriate postprocedure pacing rate. Mortality benefit with AVJ ablation has been shown in patients with heart failure and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.

Ventricular fibrillation occurring after atrioventricular node ablation despite minimal difference between pre- and post-ablation heart rates

We report the case of an 82-year-old man presenting with ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring acutely after atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation. This patient had severe valvular cardiomyopathy, chronic atrial fibrillation (AF), and underwent prior to the AVN ablation a biventricular implantable cardiac defibrillator positioning. The VF was successfully cardioverted with one external electrical shock. What makes this presentation original is that the pre-ablation spontaneous heart rate in AF was slow (84 bpm), and that VF occurred after ablation despite a minimal heart rate drop of only 14 bpm. VF is the most feared complication of AVN ablation, but it had previously only been described in case of acute heart rate drop after ablation of at least 30 bpm (and more frequently>50 bpm). This case report highlights the fact that VF may occur after AVN ablation regardless of the heart rate drop, rendering temporary fast ventricular pacing mandatory whatever the pre-ablation heart rate.

Sudden death and its risk factors after atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implantation in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Although sudden death (SD) is a rare complication after atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation, the risk factors leading to this SD remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate SD and its risk factors after ablate-and-pace strategy for rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients during long-term follow-up.

HYPOTHESIS

METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2009, we enrolled into this study 517 AF patients with AVJ ablation and right ventricular pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into 2 groups, SD and non-SD. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess potential risk factors for overall mortality and SD.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 18.6 months (range, 3 days to 63.8 months), 53 patients died (15 with SD). Cox proportional hazards models showed that the presence of congestive heart failure, New York Heart Association functional class, chronic renal failure, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia were risk factors that predicted overall mortality. For SD, the presence of dilated cardiomyopathy and mitral stenosis were associated risk factors. SD was exclusively seen in patients who had narrow QRS complex or right bundle branch block prior to AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation; SD was not seen in any patient with preexisting complete left bundle branch block.

CONCLUSIONS

Dilated cardiomyopathy, mitral stenosis, and baseline QRS morphology should be examined as potential risk factors for SD after AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation.

A review on atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing for heart rate control of atrial fibrillation

Atrioventricular junction ablation with permanent pacemaker implantation is a highly effective treatment approach in patients with atrial fibrillation and high ventricular rates resistant to other treatment modalities, especially in the elderly or those with severe comorbidities. Compared with pharmacological therapy alone, the so-called "ablate and pace" approach offers the potential for more robust control of ventricular rate. Atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing strategy is associated with improvement in symptoms, quality of life, and exercise capacity. Given the close relationship between atrial fibrillation and heart failure, there is a particular benefit of such a rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced systolic function. There is increasing evidence that cardiac resynchronization therapy devices may be beneficial in selected populations after atrioventricular junction ablation. The present review article focuses on the current recommendations for atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing for heart rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The technique, the optimal implantation time, and the proper device selection after atrioventricular junction ablation are also discussed.

Atrioventricular Junction Ablation In Atrial Fibrillation: Choosing The Right Patient And Pacing Device

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and despite advancements in rhythm control through direct catheter ablation, maintaining sinus rhythm is not possible in a large proportion of AF patients, who therefore are subject to a rate control strategy only. Nonetheless, in some of these patients pharmacological rate control may be ineffective, often leaving the patient highly symptomatic and at risk of developing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and heart failure (HF). Catheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction (AVJ) with subsequent permanent pacemaker implantation provides definite rate control and represents an attractive therapeutic option when pharmacological rate control is not achieved. In patients with reduced ventricular function, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be considered over right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing in order to avoid the deleterious effects associated with a high amount of chronic RVA pacing. Another group of patients that may also benefit from AVJ ablation are HF patients with concomitant AF receiving CRT. In this patient cohort AVJ ablation ensures near 100% biventricular pacing, thus allowing optimization of the therapeutic effects of CRT.

Hybrid therapy in the management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Because of the sub-optimal outcomes and associated risks of medical therapy as well as the recent advances in non-pharmacologic strategies, a multitude of combined (hybrid) algorithms have been introduced that improve efficacy of standalone therapies while maintaining a high safety profile. Antiarrhythmic administration enhances success rate of electrical cardioversion. Catheter ablation of antiarrhythmic drug-induced typical atrial flutter may prevent recurrent atrial fibrillation. Through simple ablation in the right atrium, suppression of atrial fibrillation may be achieved in patients with previously ineffective antiarrhythmic therapy. Efficacy of complex catheter ablation in the left atrium is improved with antiarrhythmic drugs. Catheter ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective and safe treatment option for selected patients. Additional strategies include pacing therapies such as atrial pacing with permanent pacemakers, preventive pacing algorithms, and/or implantable dual-chamber defibrillators are available. Modern hybrid strategies combining both epicardial and endocardial approaches in order to create a complex set of radiofrequency lesions in the left atrium have demonstrated a high rate of success and warrant further research. Hybrid therapy for atrial fibrillation reviews history of development of non-pharmacological treatment strategies and outlines avenues of ongoing research in this field.

Effect of pacing method on risk of sudden death after atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Sudden death may occur after radiofrequency catheter ablation of the atrioventricular node (AVN) and permanent pacemaker implantation. It is unclear whether a faster initial heart rate with gradual rate reduction decreases the risk of sudden death.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of initial pacing at a faster rate after AVN ablation, with a gradual rate decrease over 3 months, on the rate of sudden death in patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We compared the rate of likely or possible procedure-related sudden death in 2 groups of patients who had AVN ablation and pacemaker implantation. The study cohort was treated between January 2005 and December 2009, and pacemakers were programmed to a lower rate of 90 beats/min after the procedure, with a monthly decrement of 10 beats/min until 60 beats/min was reached. The control group was treated between July 1990 and December 1998 when pacemakers were programmed to a lower rate of 60 beats/min immediately after ablation.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 520 patients (mean age 73.6 ± 10.3 years), and the control cohort comprised 334 patients (mean age 68.1 ± 1.1 years). Sudden death deemed likely or possibly related to ablation and pacemaker implantation occurred in 1 patient in the study cohort (0.2%) and in 7 patients (2.1%) in the control group (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Sudden death was significantly decreased in the study cohort compared to controls. The faster lower pacing rate immediately after AVN ablation with a gradual decrease is a plausible mechanism for the improved clinical outcome.

Current role of atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation

Atrioventricular junction ablation with permanent pacemaker insertion is a highly effective treatment approach in patients with atrial fibrillation that is resistant to other treatment modalities, especially in the elderly or those with severe comorbidities. This effect likely reflects reversal of rapid ventricular rates and regularizing ventricular rates. There is increasing evidence that cardiac resynchronization therapy devices may be beneficial in selected populations after atrioventricular node ablation. The limitations of this approach include continued need for anticoagulation and lifelong pacemaker therapy.

Ablate and Pace: Is There Still a Role?

Despite the development of newer drugs and procedures to improve rhythm control, there is still a place for ablation of the atrioventricular junction (AVJ) in the management of selected patients with AF who are refractory to medical therapy, to improve quality of life, prevent ventricular dysfunction, and to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy. We review all aspects of the "ablate and pace" strategy, from its history to patient selection, technique, outcomes and applications, and identify the need for randomized clinical trials to address some of the remaining questions regarding its application in some groups of patients.

Current Issues in Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers, and the society at large. While the main themes in the care of an AF patient have not changed over the years and continue to focus on stroke prevention, control of the ventricular, rate and rhythm maintenance, there have been a number of new developments in each of these realms. This paper will discuss the “hot” topics in AF in 2012 including new and upcoming medical and invasive management strategies for this condition.

Atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implantation for heart failure associated with atrial fibrillation: potential issues and therapies in the setting of acute heart failure syndrome

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and is especially clinically important in patients with heart failure. Prolonged atrial fibrillation with high ventricular rate response may lead to development or worsening of left ventricular function. If adequate heart rate control cannot be obtained medically, often patients will undergo pacemaker implant and catheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction. This intervention can have profound effects on the course of heart failure. This article reviews the technique, complications, outcome data, and alternatives to this management strategy. The potential role of this therapeutic modality in those hospitalized with acute heart failure syndromes is discussed.

Atrioventricular nodal ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs after permanent pacemaker implantation for bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome

Patients often require antiarrhythmic drugs to control tachycardia after permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI) for bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome. We compared atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) to antiarrhythmic drugs after PMI for bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome. Twenty-eight symptomatic patients with bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome, all of which had a long pause after termination of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, underwent PMI with RV lead placement at the mid-septum site. Among these patients, 14 underwent PMI and AVNA (AVNA group). The remaining 14 patients underwent PMI only, and continued to take anti-arrhythmic drugs (drug group). We compared cardiac function (cardio-thoracic ratio on chest X-ray, left atrial diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, and left ventricular-ejection fraction by echocardiography), exercise tolerance (6-min walking distance), symptoms, and the number of antiarrhythmic drugs just before and 6 months after PMI. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for the number of antiarrhythmic drugs. Six months after PMI, cardiac function, exercise tolerance, and symptoms did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the drug group (p < 0.01), the number of antiarrhythmic drugs was significantly smaller in the AVNA group 6 months after PMI. Patients who underwent AVNA concurrently with PMI with RV lead placement at the mid-septum site for bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome were able to reduce the intake of drugs and improve their tachycardia-related symptoms while maintaining cardiac function and exercise tolerance.

A rate-independent method of assessing QT-RR slope following conversion of atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Following conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF), QT interval transiently and variably prolongs and can trigger torsades de pointes (TdP). However, quantitative analysis of risk in this setting is difficult because cycle length variability during AF makes rate-corrected QT impossible to calculate. In this study, a newly developed method to study heart rate dependence of the QT interval during AF was applied to assess the QT-RR relationships prior to and following cardioversion in patients with AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cardiac rhythm was digitized for > or = 30 minutes prior to and following elective cardioversion to sinus rhythm (SR) in 12 patients. Each QT interval was placed in a "bin" (50 ms), according to the preceding RR interval. All QT intervals within a bin were averaged and RR bin-specific QT values were derived. The slope of the QT-RR relationship was much flatter in AF (0.058 +/- 0.02) compared with that predicted by conventionally used QT rate corrections (0.130 [Bazett], 0.096 [Fridericia]) and much steeper after cardioversion (0.238 +/- 0.14, P < 0.01 compared with AF). The method also allowed us to establish that QT at any given RR interval prolonged when SR was restored (e.g., at RR interval 800 ms: QT = 0.38 +/- 0.03 second [AF] vs 0.46 +/- 0.05 second [SR], P < 0.01). The longest QT values were in patients receiving sotalol or quinidine.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that QT interval can be reliably measured in AF using a method that is independent of heart rate. We also showed that cardioversion of AF acutely increases the QT interval and the steepness of the QT-RR slope.

Nonpharmacologic Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Persons

In recent years, new nonpharmacologic possibilities have emerged for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The roles of surgery, radiofrequency catheter ablation, pacing, and atrial defibrillation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation are discussed. This text focuses on the interaction between different treatment modalities and the pathophysiologic mechanisms of atrial fibrillation and on the available data about the effectiveness in elderly persons.

Selection of drugs in pursuit of rate control strategy

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Based on multiple large randomized trials, rate control therapy has been shown to be safe and effective and is gaining greater acceptance as a frontline alternative to drugs to maintain sinus rhythm. Adequate rate control can be achieved by atrioventricular nodal blocking agents both in the acute and chronic settings. In refractory patients, other methods such as atrioventricular node ablation can be used to control rate.

Device-based therapies for atrial fibrillation

Ablation of the atrioventricular conduction system and pacemaker implantation is the preferred procedure for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom a rate control strategy has been selected but in whom rate-controlling medications are intolerable or ineffective. Selection of standard right ventricular (RV) pacing versus biventricular pacing is individualized, based on the degree and etiology of left ventricular dysfunction. Atrial-based pacing is clearly preferable to ventricular-based pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome, because it leads to a reduction in the development of AF. Emerging evidence indicates that excess RV pacing is deleterious, increasing AF, heart failure, and possibly mortality. Therefore, physiologic pacing with minimization of RV pacing is desirable. Atrial pacing algorithms that increase the frequency of atrial pacing have shown modest efficacy in the prevention of AF. Use of atrial pacing algorithms is reasonable for patients with a history of AF and standard bradycardia indications for permanent pacing in whom maintenance of sinus rhythm is desirable. Studies assessing novel and multiple site atrial pacing therapies have mixed results, without compelling evidence of clinically important benefit. The exceptions are biatrial and right atrial overdrive pacing immediately after cardiac surgery. Several studies have shown effective suppression of postoperative AF with their use. Device therapy (eg, atrial antitachycardia pacing and defibrillation) for the termination of AF is effective in reducing arrhythmia burden. However, improvement in clinically relevant end points is not established and indications are not clearly defined. If a patient lacks an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, we do not offer atrial defibrillation as a treatment option. Atrial arrhythmias may be better prevented by programming to avoid ventricular pacing than by specific atrial interventions.

Influence of the randomized trials, AFFIRM and RACE, on the management of atrial fibrillation in two University Medical Centers

The results of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) and the Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (RACE) study were presented in March 2002. These large studies showed no benefit of a rhythm-control strategy over a rate-control strategy in managing atrial fibrillation (AF). Cardioversion and atrioventricular junctional ablation are forms of rhythm control and rate control, respectively. The numbers of cardioversions and atrioventricular junctional ablations performed at the University of Virginia and the Medical College of Virginia during the 52 months before AFFIRM and RACE results were released and the 21 months afterward were compared. From January 1998 to March 2002, monthly averages of 31 +/- 8 elective cardioversions and 6 +/- 3 atrioventricular junctional ablations were performed; from April 2002 to December 2003, the monthly averages were 21 +/- 6 cardioversions (p = 0.001) and 9 +/- 3 ablations (p = 0.001). AF management changed at these institutions shortly after the RACE and AFFIRM results were released.

Alternatives to warfarin for thromboembolism prophylaxis in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation

Decision-making regarding thromboembolism prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation remains a major clinical challenge. While evidence of the beneficial effect of anticoagulation for patients participating in clinical trials is well established, only half of eligible individuals in the general population are currently treated with warfarin. Using an evidence-based approach, this review covers major therapeutic approaches in practice today and many of those expected to be released in the near future. Pharmacologic agents evaluated include warfarin, aspirin, other antiplatelets agents, direct thrombin inhibitors and antiarrhythmic drugs. Nonpharmacologic treatments reviewed include surgical and catheter ablation, pacing, left atrial appendage ligation and occlusion methods, and atrial defibrillators.

Total Atrioventricular Nodal Ablation Increases Atrial Fibrillation Burden in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Despite Continuation of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Total atrioventricular nodal (TAVN) ablation and pacing is an accepted and safe treatment for patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Many patients develop permanent AF within the first 6 months after TAVN ablation. This usually is ascribed to the cessation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy. We hypothesized that TAVN ablation itself creates an atrial substrate prone to AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients participating in the Atrial Pacing Periablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PA3) study who remained on stable antiarrhythmic drug therapy throughout follow-up were included in this analysis. AF burden and the development of persistent AF in the preablation period were compared to two consecutive postablation periods. Echocardiographic changes also were evaluated. Twenty-two patients remained on stable drug therapy (9 men and 13 women, age 59 +/- 3 years). One patient developed persistent AF preablation compared to 10 postablation (P < 0.05). AF burden preablation was 3.0 +/- 1.2 hours/day and increased to 10.4 +/- 2.2 hours/day and 11.8 +/- 2.3 hours/day in the two postablation follow-up periods (P < 0.05). In patients with fractional shortening (FS) >30% prior to ablation, FS decreased significantly from 39.4% +/- 1.3% to 36.4%+/- 1.7% (P < 0.05). In contrast, in patients with a FS < or =30% prior to ablation, FS increased from 27% +/- 0.8% to 33.6 +/- 1.7% (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TAVN ablation increases AF burden and facilitates the development of persistent AF in patients with paroxysmal AF despite the continuation of antiarrhythmic drugs. Loss of AV and/or interventricular synchrony may lead to altered cardiac hemodynamics resulting in atrial stretch and increasing AF burden.

Clinical results with catheter ablation: AV junction, atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia

With the limitations of pharmacologic and device therapies for atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia, catheter ablation is assuming a larger role in the management of patients with these common arrhythmias. Multiple case series and clinical trials have helped to define the evolving role of these techniques for ablation of the atrioventricular node, atrial fibrillation, and ischemic ventricular tachycardia. Based on very low complication rates, excellent efficacy and proven outcomes with radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node, this approach with permanent pacing should play a larger role in the treatment of symptomatic patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. While linear ablation of atrial fibrillation has limited clinical utility for the treatment of this common arrhythmia, the results of multiple case series of focal atrial fibrillation ablation indicate the potential for an expanding role of this curative technique. Catheter ablation techniques for ventricular tachycardia in the setting of coronary artery disease have a role as supplemental therapy to the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with recurrent pharmacologically refractory ventricular arrhythmias requiring frequent device interventions.

Significant effects of atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation on left ventricular function and long-term survival in patients with atrial fibrillation and left ventricular dysfunction

Control of ventricular rate by atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with improved left ventricular (LV) function. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of atrioventricular node ablation on long-term survival in patients with AF and LV dysfunction. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method for 56 study patients with LV ejection fraction (EF) < or =40% who underwent atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation and 56 age- and gender-matched control patients with AF and LVEF >40%, and age- and gender-matched control subjects from Minnesota. Groups were compared using the log-rank test. In study patients (age 69 +/- 10 years; 45 men), LVEF was 26% +/- 8% and 34% +/- 13% (p <0.001) before and after ablation, respectively. During follow-up (40 +/- 23 months), 23 patients died. Observed survival was worse than that of normal subjects (p <0.001) and control patients (p = 0.005). After ablation, LVEF nearly normalized (> or =45%) in 16 study patients (29%), in whom observed survival was comparable to that of normal subjects (p = 0.37). Coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, chronic renal failure, previous myocardial infarction, and coronary artery operation were independent predictors for mortality. Near normalization of LVEF occurred in 29% of study patients, suggesting that AF-induced EF reduction is reversible in many patients. Normal survival in patients with reversible LV dysfunction highlights potential survival benefits of rate control. Poor survival in patients with persistent LV dysfunction confirms the importance of optimal medical therapy.