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

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.

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.

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.