Catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation accompanied by heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: feasibility and benefits in functions and B-type natriuretic peptide

Early Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation is Associated With Lower Recurrence Rates and Improved Prognosis in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling (LVRR) following catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AFCA) has not been fully elucidated. This study investigated the clinical impact of early LVRR after AFCA on prognosis in patients with LV systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

METHODS

Of 1,989 consecutive patients undergoing first-time AFCA, 302 patients with a baseline LV ejection fraction < 50% were included. LVRR was defined as a decrease in the LV end-systolic volume of ≥ 15% on an echocardiography at 3 months after AFCA. The clinical outcomes and prognoses were compared between patients with and without LVRR.

RESULTS

LVRR was observed in 191 (63%) patients at 3 months after AFCA. A multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that non-paroxysmal AF, non-cardiomyopathy, absence of early recurrence, QRS duration ≤ 120 ms were significantly associated with the LVRR after 3 months. During a median follow-up period of 30 (16-50) months, patients with LVRR showed a lower incidence of AF recurrence (24.1% vs. 39.6%; p = 0.004), heart failure hospitalizations (5.8% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.022), all-cause mortality (4.2% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.017), and composite events including recurrence, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality (26.7% vs. 48.7%; p < 0.001) compared to those without. A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the LVRR at 3 months was independently associated with AF recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.624, p = 0.029) and composite endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.573, p = 0.006) after AFCA.

CONCLUSIONS

The LVRR emerged in two-third of the patients with LVSD after 3 months of AFCA. Early LVRR was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and prognoses after AFCA.

Association between postprocedural echocardiographic and laboratory data and clinical outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The HFA-PEFF score comprising echocardiographic and laboratory data is designed to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and holds prognostic value in patients who underwent catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the incorporation of many variables into this score limits its practical use.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop and to validate a simplified score (AF-HFA-PEFF score) focusing on AF-related parameters to predict cardiovascular events and AF recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 354 patients with preserved ejection fraction who underwent AF ablation. Using Cox regression hazard ratios from the HFA-PEFF score variables, we generated a risk score from a random 50% of patients and validated it with the other half.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis revealed that postprocedural E/e', tricuspid regurgitation peak gradient, left atrial volume index, and brain natriuretic peptide levels were associated with 3-year cardiovascular events or AF recurrence. We developed the AF-HFA-PEFF score incorporating these factors. In the derivation group, C statistics for cardiovascular events were 0.72 for the AF-HFA-PEFF score and 0.74 for the original HFA-PEFF score and 0.71 and 0.69 for AF recurrence, respectively. Validation demonstrated that patients with an AF-HFA-PEFF score <4 had a 3-year cardiovascular event risk of 1.4% vs 9.4% for scores ≥4 (P < .001). For AF recurrence, these figures were 9.7% and 65.6%, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The AF-HFA-PEFF score is simpler than the HFA-PEFF score and is equally associated with 3-year cardiovascular events and AF recurrence.

Rate Versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

Atrial fibrillation with Heart Failure is a constellation of co-morbid conditions that now constitutes a major cardiovascular epidemic, with HF now the most common complication of AF. Mechanistically, both conditions promote substrate disease in the atrium and ventricle. AF is an independent rixk factor in HF progression and pump failure death. While early studies comparing rhythm control antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control drugs showed no significant benefit in cardiovascular outcomes, AF did promote HF emergence and hospitalizations. Newer rhythm control strategies with present day antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation support benefits in cardiovascular outcomes in AF with HF. Catheter ablation improved HF outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction but further and larger studies are needed, especially for AF with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation after acute decompensated heart failure Attack: Earlier is Better?

Background

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is often accompanied by persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal timing for RFCA in patients with persistent AF and ADHF is still uncertain.

Objectives

The aim of this observational cohort study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of early RFCA in patients with persistent AF after ADHF attack.

Methods

Patients with persistent AF and ADHF who underwent early RFCA as soon as the ADHF symptoms were initially controlled (Early group, n = 63) and those who received elective procedures after a transitional period (Elective group, n = 67) were investigated. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 50 matched pairs were analyzed.

Results

The overall procedural complication rates were similar (Early group: 6.0 %, n = 3; Elective group: 6.0 %, n = 3; P = 1.000). Patients in the early group had significantly less HF rehospitalization than the elective group during the 1-year post-procedure follow-up period (Mantel-Cox test: P = 0.036; HR: 0.369; 95 %CI: 0.145-0.938), though AF recurrence showed no difference (Mantel-Cox test: P = 0.645; HR: 1.204; 95 %CI: 0.547-2.648). A 90-day rehospitalization rate was significantly higher in the transitional period in the elective group, compared with patients who already received early RFCA (Elective group: 13, 26.0 %; Early group: 2, 4.0 %; P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Early RFCA therapy for persistent AF after ADHF attack was safe and effective. Patients who received early RFCA therapy had significantly less HF rehospitalization in the 1-year post-procedure follow-up period. On the other hand, the elective procedure was accompanied by a higher risk of HF rehospitalization during the waiting period.

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 limitation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the long-term outcomes and subclinical HF after nonparoxysmal AF ablation in HFpEF patients have not been fully evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One-hundred-ninety nonparoxysmal AF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% who underwent first-time AF ablation were studied. HFpEF was diagnosed from a history of congestive HF and/or combined criteria of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration and transthoracic echocardiogram parameters, including average septal-lateral E/e' and tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity. Ninety-five patients with HFpEF (HFpEF group) were compared with 95 patients without HF (CNT group). Low voltage area (LVA) was defined as an area with a bipolar electrogram of <0.5 mV covering >5% of the total left atrial surface. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening HF. The secondary endpoint was subclinical HFpEF defined from NT-proBNP concentration and average septal-lateral E/e' or tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity at 6-12 months after the procedure irrespective of the rhythm. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the primary composite endpoint did not differ between the two groups (mean follow-up period 707 ± 75 days, log-rank p = 0.5330). However, significantly more patients in the HFpEF group reached the secondary endpoint (42 [44%] vs. 13 [14%], p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a high preablation NT-proBNP (odds ratio [OR] 1.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.001-1.002, p = 0.0040) and the existence of LVA (OR 5.983, 95% CI 1.463-31.768, p = 0.0194) independently predicted the secondary endpoint in HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSION

After nonparoxysmal AF ablation, mortality of HFpEF patients was not inferior compared to patients without coexisting HF. However, subclinical HF occasionally persisted especially in HFpEF patients with a high preprocedure NT-proBNP concentration and LVA.

Catheter Ablation in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases with age and treatment with catheter ablation is performed frequently. Catheter ablation may have a lower rate of success and a higher rate of complications in older patients.We compared the characteristics, success rates, and complications of catheter ablation in patients with AF categorized into late old-aged (≥ 75 years, n = 148), early old-aged (65-74 years), n = 129), and middle-aged (< 65 years, n = 91) groups. Effects of catheter ablation on cardiac function in the left ventricle (LV) and left atrium (LA), and plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels were evaluated at baseline and 1 year.AF ablation was successfully performed in older patients and the recurrence rate did not differ between groups (late old-aged: 29.7%, early old-aged: 15.5%, middle-aged: 23.1%). Procedural complications did not statistically differ among the groups (late old-aged: 9.5%, early old-aged: 6.2%, middle-aged: 3.3%). The LA volume index was greater in the late old-aged patients than in the other 2 groups. As comorbidities, hypertension and history of heart failure and stroke were more common in late old-aged patients. At 1 year after ablation, the LV ejection fraction, the LA volume index, and LA emptying fraction were improved, even in late old-aged patients. Plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels were reduced in both the late old-aged and early-old-aged groups.Our findings indicate that AF ablation in late old-aged patients is effective, particularly with regard to LA structure and function, and the complication rate is similar to that in middle-aged patients.

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.

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2 weeks before and 6 months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-6.73; P < 0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.82-1.86, P = 0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6 months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Moderate/severe biatrial dilation predicts adverse events after ablation in atrial fibrillation with heart failure

AIMS

To retrospectively compare the long-term outcomes following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF) and reduced/mildly reduced EF (HFr-mrEF) patients, and to identify novel predictors of adverse clinical events.

METHODS

In total, 1402 AF patients with HF who underwent successful ablation were consecutively enrolled. Adverse clinical events including all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and stroke were followed up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the associations between clinical factors and events. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidences of these events. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the ability of these predictors.

RESULTS

During a follow-up period of 42 ± 15 months, 265 (18.9%) patients experienced adverse clinical events after ablation. The cumulative incidence of adverse clinical events was significantly higher in HFr-mrEF than in HFpEF (25.4% vs. 15.7%, P < 0.001), the similar tendency was observed on all-cause death (10.5% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.011) and HF hospitalization (17.2% vs. 10.1%, P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, non-paroxysmal AF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.922, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.130-3.268, P = 0.016], LAD ≥ 45 mm (HR 2.197, 95% CI 1.206-4.003, P < 0.001), LVEF (HR 0.959, 95% CI 0.946-0.981, P < 0.001), and RAD ≥ 45 mm (HR 2.044, 95% CI 1.362-3.238, P < 0.001) remained the independent predictors for developing adverse clinical events. A predictive model performed with non-paroxysmal AF, LAD ≥ 45 mm and RAD ≥ 45 mm yielded an area under curve of 0.728 (95% CI 0.696-0.760, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AF patients with HFpEF had better long-term outcomes than those with HFr-mrEF, and moderate/severe biatrial dilation could predict adverse clinical events following catheter ablation in AF and HF patients.

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.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for nearly half of all heart failure cases and has a prevalence that is expected to rise with the growing ageing population. HFpEF is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Specific HFpEF risk factors include age, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and atrial fibrillation. Haemodynamic contributions to HFpEF include changes in left ventricular structure, diastolic and systolic dysfunction, left atrial myopathy, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular dysfunction, chronotropic incompetence, and vascular dysfunction. Inflammation, fibrosis, impaired nitric oxide signalling, sarcomere dysfunction, and mitochondrial and metabolic defects contribute to the cellular and molecular changes observed in HFpEF. HFpEF impacts multiple organ systems beyond the heart, including the skeletal muscle, peripheral vasculature, lungs, kidneys and brain. The diagnosis of HFpEF can be made in individuals with signs and symptoms of heart failure with abnormality in natriuretic peptide levels or evidence of cardiopulmonary congestion, facilitated by the use of HFpEF risk scores and additional imaging and testing with the exclusion of HFpEF mimics. Management includes initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy and management of comorbidities. Given the significant impact of HFpEF on quality of life, future research efforts should include a particular focus on how patients can live better with this disease.

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.

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).

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 for atrial fibrillation improves the outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have worse clinical outcomes than those with sinus rhythm (SR). We aim to investigate whether maintaining SR in patients with HFpEF through a strategy such as AF ablation would improve outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cohort study that analysed 1034 patients (median age 69 [63-76] years, 46.2% [478/1034] female) with HFpEF and AF. Of these, 392 patients who underwent first-time AF ablation were assigned to the ablation group, and the remaining 642 patients, who received only medical therapy, were assigned to the no ablation group. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the ablation group compared to the no ablation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82], P = 0.003) in the propensity score-matched model. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that the benefit of AF ablation was mainly driven by a reduction in rehospitalization for worsening heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.80], P = 0.003). Patients in the ablation group showed a 33% relative decrease in atrial tachycardia/AF recurrence compared to the no ablation group (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF and AF, the strategy of AF ablation to maintain SR was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure.

Association Between Catheter Ablation for Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation and Functional Mitral Regurgitation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) often coexists with atrial fibrillation (AF) and may have a causal relation with AF persistence and exacerbation of heart failure (HF). The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of FMR on AF catheter ablation (AFCA) outcomes and improvement in FMR after AFCA in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and nonparoxysmal AF. Excluding patients with primary valve disease or post-mitral valve repair, 280 patients with HFpEF who underwent CA for nonparoxysmal AF were retrospectively included. All patients completed 1-year follow-up and were assessed for FMR, AF recurrence and HF parameters, including echocardiography. At baseline, FMR was present in 153 (54.6%) patients (mild, n = 112; moderate, n = 40; severe, n = 1), and these were decreased to 70 (25%) significantly 1 year after AFCA (mild, n = 64; moderate, n = 6), 119 patients (78%) had improvement in MR (a decrease of ≥1 level in the severity from baseline to 1 year on echocardiography). Overall, 274 patients (97.9%) had sinus rhythm at the 1-year examination, and recurrent AF-free survival did not differ in patients with and without MR improvement (83.2% vs 82.4%, p = 0.908). However, the MR improvement group had a significantly lower cardiothoracic ratio, left atrial diameter, E/e', and B-type natriuretic peptide levels after 1 year than those in the MR nonimprovement group. In conclusion, the majority of the HFpEF patients with nonparoxysmal AF had improvement of FMR after AFCA with the high maintenance of sinus rhythm, leading to a virtuous cycle of cardiac function.

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.

Long-Term prognosis of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with different subtypes of heart failure in the era of ablation index guidance

Background

The long-term outcomes of ablation index (AI)-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) on atrial fibrillation (AF) and different subtypes of heart failure (HF) remain unknown. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis of AI-guided RFCA procedures in patients with AF and concomitant HF.

Methods

We retrospectively included consecutive patients with AF and HF who underwent the initial RFCA procedure with AI guidance from March 2018 to June 2021 in our institution. The patients were categorized into two groups: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) group and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) +HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) group.

Results

A total of 101 patients were included. HFpEF and HFmrEF + HFrEF groups consisted of 71 (70.3%) and 30 patients (29.7%), respectively. During a median follow-up of 32.0 (18.2, 37.6) months, no significant difference was detected in AF recurrence between groups (21.1 vs. 33.3%) after multiple procedures, whereas the incidence of the composite endpoint of all-cause death, thromboembolic events, and HF hospitalization was significantly lower in HFpEF group (9.9 vs. 25.0%, Log-rank p = 0.018). In multivariable analysis, a history of hypertension [hazard ratio (HR) 4.667, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.433–15.203, p = 0.011], left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% (HR 5.390, 95% CI 1.911–15.203, p = 0.001) and recurrent AF after multiple procedures (HR 7.542, 95% CI 2.355–24.148, p = 0.001) were independently associated with the incidence of the composite endpoint.

Conclusion

Long-term success could be achieved in 75% of patients with AF and concomitant HF after AI-guided RFCA procedures, irrespective of different HF subtypes. Preserved LVEF was associated with a reduction in the composite endpoint compared with impaired LVEF. Patients with recurrent AF tend to have a poorer prognosis.

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.

Long-term events following catheter-ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Data regarding prognostic events following catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are scarce. We conducted this study to compare the incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) following CA for AF between patients with HFpEF and those with systolic heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This single-centre observational study included 142 patients with HF who underwent CA for AF (median follow-up: 4.0 [2.6, 6.3] years). The patients were grouped based on the presence of HFpEF (n = 84) and systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, n = 58). We compared the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of MACE, comprising all-cause death, unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH), and HF hospitalization (HFH) between both groups and the number of HFH before and after CA in each group. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the predictors of MACE in patients with HFpEF. The incidence of MACE was comparable between the groups (following the first procedure: HFpEF: 23%, 4.7/100 person-years, vs. systolic HF: 28%, 6.6/100 person-years, P = 0.18; last procedure: 20%, 4.8/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 6.9/100 person-years, P = 0.21). Although the incidence of HFH was lower in patients with HFpEF than in those with systolic HF (first procedure: 14%, 2.9/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 5.7/100 person-years, P = 0.07; last procedure: 11%, 2.5/100 person-years, vs. 24%, 6.9/100 person-years, P = 0.01), the incidence of CVH was higher (first procedure: 8%, 1.7/100 person-years, vs. 5%, 1.2/100 person-years, P = 0.74; last procedure: 6%, 1.4/100 person-years, vs. 2%, 0.5/100 person-years, P = 0.4). The number of HFH significantly decreased in both groups after CA (HFpEF: 1 hospitalization [the first and third quartiles: 0, 1] in pre-CA, vs. 0 hospitalizations [0, 0] in post-CA, P < 0.0001; systolic HF: 1 hospitalization [0, 1], vs. 0 hospitalizations [0, 0], P < 0.005). The proportion of HFH among total clinical events was significantly smaller in patients with HFpEF than in those with systolic HF (following the first procedure: 56% vs. 88%, P < 0.005; last procedure: 52% vs. 92%, P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CA for AF could be beneficial for patients with HFpEF, similar to those with systolic HF. However, clinical events other than HFH should be considered cautiously in such patients.

Comorbidities in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common causes of hospitalization and death in industrialized countries. Demographic changes with an aging population are expected to further increase the prevalence of chronic heart failure. The associated increase in comorbidities in patients with chronic heart failure leads to a less favorable prognosis for survival. A selection of the major comorbidities discussed in this review—along with prevalence, impact on prognosis, treatment approaches, and current study status—include atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, coronary artery disease, coronary microvascular dysfunction, renal dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, reduced lymphatic reserve, and the effects on oxygen utilization and physical activity. The complex clinical picture of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging in the nearly absence of evidence-based therapy. Except for comorbidity-specific guidelines, no HFpEF-specific treatment of comorbidities can be recommended at this time. Optimized care is becoming increasingly relevant to reducing hospitalizations through a seamless inpatient and outpatient care structure. Current treatment is focused on symptom relief and management of associated comorbidities. Therefore, prevention through early minimization of risk factors currently remains the best approach.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential of CA to benefit AF patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Hypothesis

CA may be safe and effective for patients with HFpEF.

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating CA for AF patients with HFpEF.

Results

A total of seven trials with 1696 patients were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar procedure and fluoroscopy time regarding the use of CA for patients with HFpEF and without HF (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.01–0.81, p = .05 and [WMD: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.18–0.28, p = .68]). Moreover, CA was effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with HFpEF and noninferior for patients without HF [risk ratio (RR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76–1.10, p = .34). Additionally, CA tended to significantly maintain SR (RR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.86–12.03, p = .001) and reduce rehospitalization for HF compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19–0.71, p = .003). However, no significant differences were found between two groups regarding the mortality rate (p = .59).

Conclusion

CA is a potential treatment strategy for patients with HFpEF and demonstrates equivalent efficacy to that of patients without HF. Moreover, the benefits of CA in maintaining SR and reducing rehospitalization of HF patients were significantly better than those of medical therapy. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: Prime time for ablation!

Among heart failure (HF) patients, the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with a marked worsening of HF symptoms and increased morbidity and mortality. Among AF patients, 30%–40% experience at least 1 HF episode. New data suggest that, in HF patients, AF rhythm control is superior to rate control and that rhythm control by catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs. In recent years, several trials that addressed the impact of AF ablation on morbidity and mortality included HF patients; however, studies also have specifically investigated the growing cohort of patients suffering from both HF and AF. Although the majority of these trials showed a marked benefit of AF ablation, there are hints that not all HF patients benefit equally from AF ablation. AF treatment in HF is challenging because the same cardiac morbidities that lead to HF can also act as risk factors for the development of the arrhythmogenic substrate that causes AF. In many patients, this arrhythmogenic substrate can be successfully treated by antral pulmonary vein isolation pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, due to advanced atrial disease, some patients also might require multiple procedures and/or “PVI plus” ablation strategies. In this review, we summarize current data on the effect of AF ablation in HF patients, with a special focus on the beneficial effect of AF ablation in different clinical HF subgroups.