A randomised, controlled study of rate versus rhythm control in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and heart failure: (CAFE-II Study)

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

State-of-the-art document on optimal contemporary management of cardiomyopathies

Cardiomyopathies represent significant contributors to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Over the past decades, a progress has occurred in characterization of the genetic background and major pathophysiological mechanisms, which has been incorporated into a more nuanced diagnostic approach and risk stratification. Furthermore, medications targeting core disease processes and/or their downstream adverse effects have been introduced for several cardiomyopathies. Combined with standard care and prevention of sudden cardiac death, these novel and emerging targeted therapies offer a possibility of improving the outcomes in several cardiomyopathies. Therefore, the aim of this document is to summarize practical approaches to the treatment of cardiomyopathies, which includes the evidence-based novel therapeutic concepts and established principles of care, tailored to the individual patient aetiology and clinical presentation of the cardiomyopathy. The scope of the document encompasses contemporary treatment of dilated, hypertrophic, restrictive and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. It was based on an expert consensus reached at the Heart Failure Association online Workshop, held on 18 March 2021.

HEART Score Recalibration Using Higher Sensitivity Troponin T

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We examined the diagnostic performance of a recalibrated History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score in patients with suspected acute cardiac syndrome (ACS). Recalibration of troponin thresholds was performed, including shifting from the 99th percentile to the limit of detection (LOD) or to the limit of quantification (LOQ) We compared the discharge potential and safety of the recalibrated composite scores using a single presentation high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T to the conventional scores and with a LOD/LOQ troponin strategy alone.

METHODS

We undertook a 2-center prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom (UK) (2018) (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03619733) to specifically assess recalibrated risk scores (shifting the troponin subset scoring from 99th percentile to LOD [UK]) and combined the results of this with secondary analyses of 2 prospective cohort studies in the UK (2011) and the United States (2018, using LOQ rather than LOD). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as adjudicated type 1 myocardial infarction (MI), urgent coronary revascularization, and all-cause death, at 30 days. We evaluated the original scores using hs-cTn below the 99th percentile and recalibrated scores using hs-cTn

RESULTS

We studied 3,752 patients (3,003 in the UK and 749 in the United States). Median age was 58 years, and 48% were female. At 30 days, 330/3,752 (8.8%) experienced MACE. The sensitivities of the original HEART less or equal to 3 and recalibrated HEART less or equal to 3 scores for rule-out were 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.4 to 97.9) and 98.6% (95% CI, 96.5 to 99.5) respectively; the original TIMI less or equal to 1 and recalibrated TIMI less or equal to 1 scores' sensitivities were 79.7% (95% CI, 74.9 to 83.9) and 96.1% (95% CI, 93.4 to 97.9) respectively; and nonischemic ECG with hs-cTn T below the 99th percentile and hs-cTn T less than LOD/LOQ was 79.7% (95%CI, 0.749 to 0.839) and 99.1% (95% CI, 0.974 to 0.998), respectively. Recalibrated HEART less or equal to 3 was projected to discharge 14% more patients than hs-cTn T less than LOD/LOQ. The improved sensitivity of rule-out for recalibrated HEART less than or equal to 3 came at the cost of reduced specificity (50.8% versus 53.8% for recalibrated HEART and conventional HEART respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that recalibrated HEART score of less or equal to 3 is a feasible and safe early discharge strategy using a single presentation hs-cTnT. This finding should be further tested using competitor hs-cTn assays in independent prospective cohorts before implementation.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Female
• Middle Aged
• Male
• Troponin T
• Prospective Studies
• Troponin
• Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis
• Myocardial Infarction/complications
• Acute Coronary Syndrome/diagnosis
• Biomarkers
• Emergency Service, Hospital

Collapse

Grants

• K08 HL130546 NHLBI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s) Collapse

The Relationship Between Atrial Fibrillation and Parathyroid Hormone in Heart Failure Outpatients

Background    Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia in heart failure (HF). Plasma concentrations of para-thyroid hormone (PTH) have been shown to increase in HF. The relationship between PTH concentrations and the presence of AF in HF is, however, unknown. This study analyzed the relationship between plasma PHT concentrations and AF in patients with systolic HF.Material and methods    131 consecutive, stable HF patients, who were admitted to the HF outpatient clinic, were included in this prospective, observational study. Patients were classified as those with AF (n = 36) and those in sinus rhythm (SR, n = 95).Results    PTH concentrations were markedly higher in patients with AF compared to the patients in SR [85 (15-320) vs. 112 (30-326) U / ml, p=0.007]. PTH, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, creatinine, age, and left ventricular ejection fraction were found to be related to AF by univariate analysis; though, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only PTH concentration was independently related to AF.Conclusion    PTH concentrations can be used to indicate AF in patients with systolic HF.

Pharmacologic Rate versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Patients

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and Heart failure (HF) constitute two frequently coexisting cardiovascular diseases, with a great volume of the scientific research referring to strategies and guidelines associated with the best management of patients suffering from either of the two or both of these entities. The common pathophysiological paths, the adverse outcomes, the hospitalization rates, and the mortality rates that occur from various reports and trials indicate that a targeted therapy to the common background of these cardiovascular conditions may reverse the progression of their interrelating development. Among other optimal treatments concerning the prevalence of both AF and HF, the introduction of rhythm and rate control strategies in the guidelines has underlined the importance of sinus rhythm and heart rate control in the prevention of deleterious complications. The use of these strategies in the clinical practice has led to a debate about the superiority of rhythm versus rate control. The current guidelines as well as the published randomized trials and studies have not proved that rhythm control is more beneficial than the rate control treatments in the terms of survival, all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and quality of life. Therefore, the current therapeutic strategy is based on the therapy guidelines and the clinical judgment and experience. The aim of this review was to elucidate the endpoints of pharmacologic randomized clinical trials and the clinical data of each antiarrhythmic or rate-limiting medication, so as to promote their effective, individualized, evidence-based clinical use.

Current Therapeutic Approach to Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congenital Hemophilia

Cardiovascular disease in hemophiliacs has an increasing prevalence due to the aging of this population. Hemophiliacs are perceived as having a high bleeding risk due to the coagulation factor VIII/IX deficiency, but it is currently acknowledged that they also have an important ischemic risk. The treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is particularly challenging since it usually requires anticoagulant treatment. The CHA2DS2-VASc score is used to estimate the risk of stroke and peripheral embolism, and along with the severity of hemophilia, guide the therapeutic strategy. Our work provides the most complete, structured, and updated analysis of the current therapeutic approach of AF in hemophiliacs, emphasizing that there is a growing interest in therapeutic strategies that allow for short-term anticoagulant therapy. Catheter ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion have proven to be efficient and safe procedures in hemophiliacs, if appropriate replacement therapy can be provided.

AIM-AF: A Physician Survey in the United States and Europe

Background

Guideline recommendations are the accepted reference for selection of therapies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to understand physicians’ treatment practices and adherence to guidelines.

Methods and Results

The AIM‐AF (Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation) study was an online survey of clinical cardiologists and electrophysiologists that was conducted in the United States and Europe (N=629). Respondents actively treated ≥30 patients with AF who received drug therapy, and had received or were referred for ablation every 3 months. The survey comprised 96 questions on physician demographics, AF types, and treatment practices. Overall, 54% of respondents considered guidelines to be the most important nonpatient factor influencing treatment choice. Across most queried comorbidities, amiodarone was selected by 60% to 80% of respondents. Other nonadherent usage included sotalol by 21% in patients with renal impairment; dofetilide initiation (16%, United States only) outside of hospital; class Ic agents by 6% in coronary artery disease; and dronedarone by 8% in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Additionally, rhythm control strategies were frequently chosen in asymptomatic AF (antiarrhythmic drugs [AADs], 35%; ablation, 8%) and subclinical AF (AADs, 38%; ablation, 13%). Despite guideline algorithms emphasizing safety first, efficacy (48%) was selected as the most important consideration for AAD choice, followed by safety (34%).

Conclusions

Despite surveyed clinicians recognizing the importance of guidelines, nonadherence was frequently observed. While deviation may be reasonable in selected patients, in general, nonadherence has the potential to compromise patient safety. These findings highlight an underappreciation of the safe use of AADs, emphasizing the need for interventions to support optimal AAD selection.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

OUP accepted manuscript

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

Meta-Analysis of Catheter Ablation versus Medical Therapy for Heart Failure Complicated with Atrial Fibrillation

Objective

To compare the efficacy of catheter ablation and medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

Methods

We searched randomized controlled trials comparing catheter ablation versus medical therapy for heart failure and atrial fibrillation through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Articles were investigated for their methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of the bias assessment tool. Forest plots, funnel plots, and sensitivity analysis were also performed on the included articles. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Nine (9) studies were included in this study with 1131 patients. Meta-analysis showed a reduction in all-cause mortality from catheter ablation compared with medical therapy (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.76; P=0.0007) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD = 6.45, 95% CI = 3.49 to 9.41; P < 0.0001), 6-minute walking time (6MWT) (MD = 28.32, 95% CI = 17.77 to 38.87; P < 0.0001), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score (MD = 8.19, 95% CI = 0.30 to 16.08; P=0.04).

Conclusion

Catheter ablation had a better improvement than medical treatment in left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac function, and exercise ability for atrial fibrillation and heart failure patients.

Catheter ablation superiority over the pharmacological treatments in atrial fibrillation: a dedicated review

Atrial fibrillation globally affects roughly 33.5 million people, making it the most common heart rhythm disorder. It is a crucial arrhythmia, as it is linked with a variety of negative outcomes such as strokes, heart failure and cardiovascular mortality. Atrial fibrillation can reduce quality of life because of the potential symptoms, for instance exercise intolerance, fatigue, and palpitation. There are different types of treatments aiming to prevent atrial fibrillation and improve quality of life. Currently, the primary treatment for atrial fibrillation is pharmacology therapy, however, these still show limited effectiveness, which has led to research on other alternative strategies. Catheter ablation is considered the second line treatment for atrial fibrillation when the standard treatment has failed. Moreover, catheter ablation continues to show significant results when compared to standard therapy. Hence, this review will argue that catheter ablation can show superiority over current pharmacological treatments in different aspects. It will discuss the most influential aspects of the treatment of atrial fibrillation, which are recurrence and burden of atrial fibrillation, quality of life, atrial fibrillation in the setting of heart failure and mortality and whether catheter ablation can be the first line treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Long-term effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure

AIMS

Randomized trials suggest reductions in all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) rehospitalizations with catheter ablation (CA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF. Whether these results can be replicated in a real-world population with long-term follow-up or varies over time is unknown. We sought to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of CA in reducing the incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, stroke, and major bleeding in AF-HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with AF-HF in Quebec, Canada (2000-2017), CA patients were matched 1:2 to controls on time and frequency of hospitalizations. Confounders were controlled for using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for the presence of cardiac electronic implantable devices and medication use during follow-up, and the effect of time since CA was modelled with B-splines. For non-fatal outcomes, the Lunn-McNeil approach was used to account for the competing risk of death. Among 101 933 AF-HF patients, 451 underwent CA and were matched to 899 controls. Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, CA was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.4 (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.7)], but no difference in stroke or major bleeding. The hazard of HF rehospitalization for CA patients, relative to non-CA patients, varied with time since CA (P = 0.01), with a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until approximately 3 years post-CA.

CONCLUSION

Compared with matched non-CA patients, CA was associated with a long-term reduction in all-cause mortality and a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until 3 years post-CA.

Managing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are increasing in prevalence worldwide. Atrial fibrillation can precipitate and can be a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and cardiomyopathy. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure, when present together, are associated with worse outcomes. Together, these 2 conditions increase the risk of stroke, requiring oral anticoagulation in many or left atrial appendage closure in some. Medical management for rate and rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure remain hampered by variable success, intolerance, and adverse effects. In multiple randomized clinical trials in recent years, catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction has shown superiority in improving survival, quality of life, and ventricular function and reducing heart failure hospitalizations compared with antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control therapies. This has resulted in a paradigm shift in management toward nonpharmacological rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The primary objective of this American Heart Association scientific statement is to review the available evidence on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation in relation to heart failure and to provide guidance on the latest advances in pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The writing committee's consensus on the implications for clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and directions for future research are highlighted.

Update on management of atrial fibrillation in heart failure: a focus on ablation

Atrial fibrillation is increasingly encountered in patients with heart failure. Both diseases have seen tremendous rises in incidence in recent years. In general, the treatment of atrial fibrillation is focused on relieving patients from atrial fibrillation-related symptoms and risk reduction for thromboembolism and the occurrence or worsening of heart failure. Symptomatic relief may be accomplished by either (non-)pharmacological rate or rhythm control in combination with optimal therapy of underlying cardiovascular morbidities and risk factors. Atrial fibrillation ablation has been performed in patients without overt heart failure successfully for many years. However, in recent years, attempts have been made for patients with heart failure as well. In this review, we discuss the current literature describing the treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. We highlight the early rate versus rhythm control studies, the importance of addressing underlying conditions and treatment of risk factors. A critical evaluation will be performed of the catheter ablation studies that have been performed so far in light of larger (post-hoc) ablation studies. Furthermore, we will hypothesise the role of patient selection as next step in optimising outcome for patient with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with systolic heart failure: pathophysiology mechanisms and management

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate a constantly increasing prevalence during the 21^st century worldwide, as a result of the aging population and the successful interventions of the clinical practice in the deterioration of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. HF and AF share common risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms, creating the base of a constant interrelation. AF impairs systolic and diastolic function, resulting in the increasing incidence of HF, whereas the structural and neurohormonal changes in HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction increase the possibility of the AF development. The temporal relationship of the development of either condition affects the diagnostic algorithms, the prognosis and the ideal therapeutic strategy that leads to euvolaemia, management of non-cardiovascular comorbidities, control of heart rate or restoration of sinus rate, ventricular synchronization, prevention of sudden death, stroke, embolism, or major bleeding and maintenance of a sustainable quality of life. The indicated treatment for the concomitant HF and AF includes rate or/and rhythm control as well as thromboembolism prophylaxis, while the progress in the understanding of their pathophysiological interdependence and the introduction of the genetic profiling, create new paths in the diagnosis, the prognosis and the prevention of these diseases.

A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation: The RAFT-AF trial rationale and design

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 cardiac conditions that are increasing in prevalence and incidence. The 2 conditions frequently coexist, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation of AF has been successfully performed in patients with HF, with an improvement in HF and AF, when compared to amiodarone, but further data is required to compare this to rate control. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine whether AF treated by catheter ablation, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for HF as compared with rate control in patients with HF and a high burden AF. METHODS: This is a multi-center prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) study. Patients with NYHA class II-III HF (HF with reduced ejection fraction (<35%) or HF with preserved ejection fraction), and high burden AF are included in the trial. Patients are randomized to either rate control or catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the rate control group receive optimal HF therapy and rate control measures to achieve a resting hazard ratio (HR) < 80 bpm and 6-minute walk HR < 110 bpm. Patients randomized to catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control group receive optimal HF therapy and one or more aggressive catheter ablation, which include PV antral ablation and LA substrate ablation with or without adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure defined as an admission to a health care facility. The sample size is 600. Enrolment has been completed.

Rhythm Control of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Systolic Heart Failure: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Impact of atrial fibrillation on the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair using MitraClip: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR). In this systematic review, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of TMVR using MitraClip in AF patients. We performed a systematic search using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, from inception to May 10, 2020, for studies that reported outcomes following MitraClip, in patients with AF versus without AF. Seven studies with a total of 7678 patients met the inclusion criteria. The risk of 1-year all-cause mortality following TMVR was higher in AF patients (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27-1.54, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher in patients with AF (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30, p = 0.002) and the risk of bleeding was elevated in AF patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15-1.45, p ≤ 0.001). The risk of procedural failure, in-hospital mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke was not significantly different between the two groups. The higher risk of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and risk of bleeding in AF patients undergoing MitraClip warrants attention.

Revisiting Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Reviewing Lessons Learned and Redefining Therapeutic Paradigms

Since the clinical use of digitalis as the first pharmacological therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) 235 years ago in 1785, antiarrhythmic drug therapy has advanced considerably and become a cornerstone of AF clinical management. Yet, a preventive or curative panacea for sustained AF does not exist despite the rise of AF global prevalence to epidemiological proportions. While multiple elevated risk factors for AF have been established, the natural history and etiology of AF remain incompletely understood. In the present article, the first section selectively highlights some disappointing shortcomings and current efforts in antiarrhythmic drug therapy to uncover reasons why AF is such a clinical challenge. The second section discusses some modern takes on the natural history of AF as a relentless, progressive fibro-inflammatory "atriomyopathy." The final section emphasizes the need to redefine therapeutic strategies on par with new insights of AF pathophysiology.

Impact of electrical cardioversion on quality of life for patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation: Is there a treatment expectation effect?

It is assumed that electrical cardioversion (ECV) improves the quality of life (QoL) of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by restoring sinus rhythm (SR).

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effect of ECV and rhythm status on QoL of patients with symptomatic persistent AF in a randomized controlled trial.

METHOD

The elective cardioversion for prevention of symptomatic atrial fibrillation trial examined the efficacy of dronedarone around the time of ECV in maintaining SR. Quality of life was measured with the University of Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale. The primary outcome was the change in AF symptom severity (∆AFSS) score over 6 months (0-35 points, with higher scores reflecting worse QoL and a minimal clinically important difference defined as ∆AFSS ≥3 points). Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with changes in QoL.

RESULTS

We included 148 patients with complete AFSS scores at baseline and 6 months. Over 6 months, QoL improved irrespective of rhythm status (ΔAFSS scores for patients who (i) maintained SR; (ii) had AF relapse after successful ECV; and (iii) had unsuccessful ECV were -6.8 ± 6.4 points, -4.1 ± 6.2 points, and -4.0 ± 5.8 points respectively, P < .01 for all subgroups). After adjustment of baseline covariates, maintenance of SR was associated with QoL improvement (ΔAFSS: -3.8 points, 95% CI: -6.0 to -1.6 points, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance of SR was associated with clinically relevant improvement in patients' QoL at 6 months. Patients with AF recurrence had a small but still relevant improvement in their QoL, potentially due to factors other than sinus rhythm.

Clinical Outcomes of Rate vs Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation in Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent in older adults and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To reduce this AF-related morbidity in older adults, antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are regularly used for rhythm control, assuming that increasing time in sinus rhythm reduces AF-related morbidity. However, whether AADs can improve clinical outcomes in older adults remains unclear because of the increased risk for adverse drug events compared with rate control. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of rhythm control versus rate control on clinical outcomes in older adults with AF.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis targeting patients aged ≥65 years with AF and using drugs to control rate or rhythm. Articles that met the following criteria were included: enrolled older patients (sample mean ≥75 years) with AF, compared pharmacological rate versus rhythm control, and reported all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

Five observational studies were included. In total, 86,926 patients with AF with a mean age ranging from 75 to 92 years were studied. No differences were found between rhythm and rate control for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.59; I² = 79.6%; n = 28,526; four studies) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.81-1.47; I² = 0%; n = 2292; two studies). Rhythm control resulted in fewer strokes (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93; I² = 0%; n = 59,496), although this was mainly determined by one study.

CONCLUSION

All collected data were observational, which precluded making strong recommendations. Furthermore, all CIs were wide, increasing the uncertainty of the observed effects. As such, evidence was insufficient to recommend rhythm or rate control as the first-line therapy for AF in older adults. As AF is particularly prevalent in older people, more randomized controlled trials are needed in this population.

Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Heart failure affects 1–2% of the population and is associated with elevated morbidity and mortality. Cardiac arrhythmias are often a result of heart failure, but they can cause left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) as an arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC). This causal relationship should be borne in mind by the physician treating a patient with systolic heart failure in association with cardiac arrhythmia.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed (1987–2017) and on the recommendations in current guidelines.

RESULTS

The key criterion for the diagnosis of an AIC is the demonstration of a persistent arrhythmia (including pathological tachycardia) together with an LVSD whose origin cannot be explained on any other basis. Nearly any type of tachyarrhythmia or frequent ventricular extrasystoles can lead, if persistent, to a progressively severe LVSD. The underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood; the increased ventricular rate, asynchronous cardiac contractions, and neurohumoral activation all seem to play a role. The most common precipitating factors are supraventricular tachycardias in children and atrial fibrillation in adults. Recent studies have shown that the causal significance of atrial fibrillation in otherwise unexplained LVSD is underappreciated. The treatment of AIC consists primarily of the treatment of the underlying arrhythmia, generally with drugs such as beta-blockers and amiodarone. Depending on the type of arrhythmia, catheter ablation for long-term treatment should also be considered where appropriate. The diagnosis of AIC is considered to be well established when the LVSD normalizes or improves within a few weeks or months of the start of targeted treatment of the arrhythmia.

CONCLUSION

An AIC is potentially reversible. The timely recognition of this condition and the appropriate treatment of the underlying arrhythmia can substantially improve patient outcomes.

Rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation complicated with heart failure in the contemporary era of catheter ablation: a stratified pooled analysis of randomized data

Aims

The optimal treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) has been a subject of debate for years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rhythm control strategy in patients with AF complicated with HF regarding hard clinical endpoints.

Methods and results

Up-to-date randomized data comparing rhythm control using antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) vs. rate control (Subset A) or rhythm control using catheter ablation vs. medical therapy (Subset B) in AF and HF patients were pooled. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, stroke, and thromboembolic events. A total of 11 studies involving 3598 patients were enrolled (Subset A: 2486; Subset B: 1112). As compared with medical rate control, the AADs rhythm control was associated with similar all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, P = 0.65], significantly higher rate of re-hospitalization (OR: 1.25, P = 0.01), and similar rate of stroke and thromboembolic events (OR: 0.91, P = 0.76,); however, as compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation rhythm control was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR: 0.51, P = 0.0003), reduced re-hospitalization rate (OR: 0.44, P = 0.003), similar rate of stroke events (OR: 0.59, P = 0.27), greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [weighted mean difference (WMD): 6.8%, P = 0.0004], lower arrhythmia recurrence (29.6% vs. 80.1%, OR: 0.04, P &lt; 0.00001), and greater improvement in quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score) (WMD: −9.1, P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Catheter ablation as rhythm control strategy substantially improves survival rate, reduces re-hospitalization, increases the maintenance rate of sinus rhythm, contributes to preserve cardiac function, and improves quality of life for AF patients complicated with HF.

Invasive therapies for patients with concomitant heart failure and atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are two clinical entities that can present either separately or concurrently. One entity can lead to the other and vice versa as AF can not only be the underlying etiology of HF but also exacerbate HF due to other cardiac diseases. Besides prevention of cerebral and systemic embolism and elimination of AF-related symptoms, restoration of sinus rhythm for AF patients helps to avoid or reduce HF, irrespective of their underlying heart disease. Successful rates of medical therapy for AF are low in persistent AF, and much lower in long-standing AF, while invasive procedures for AF yield promising results. In this review, the authors evaluate the value of invasive therapies for HF patients complicated with non-valvular AF. We examine this clinical problem by interpreting the relationships between these two entities: the mechanism of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC), past opinions about rhythm control and rate control of AF, discrimination of HF-related AF and AF-induced HF, how to identify the AF patients that could benefit from invasive therapies, and how to select invasive therapies for different AF patients and peri-operative treatments.

Managements and outcomes of hospitalized heart failure patients with paroxysmal vs nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The prognostic significance and the optimal treatment strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) remain controversial.

METHODS

We extracted data from a large prospective national database involving Taiwanese patients with AF who were hospitalized for acute HF with reduced ejection fraction. Baseline characteristics, AF types, medications, and 1-year outcomes of the patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

At baseline, 393 (26%) patients had AF, including 117 (29.8%) patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) and 276 (70.2%) with nonparoxysmal AF (N-PAF). Patients with PAF were more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (47.3% vs 29.7%, p = 0.021), chronic kidney disease (46.2% vs 29.0%, p = 0.001), and higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.0 vs 3.6, p = 0.033) compared with patients with N-PAF; however, patients with N-PAF had larger left atrial diameter (50.5 vs 47.3 mm, p = 0.004) than patients with PAF. Patients with PAF were more likely to receive treatment with amiodarone (31.6% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001) and antiplatelet agents (54.1% vs 42.5%, p = 0.041) but less likely to receive treatment with renin-angiotensin system blockers (52.3% vs 64.9%, p = 0.021) and anticoagulants (33.3% vs 50%, p = 0.003) compared with patients with N-PAF at discharge. The 1-year mortality (26.2% vs 16.5%, p = 0.024) and non-HF-related death rates (13.1% vs 5%, p = 0.005) were significantly higher in patients with PAF, whereas HF and arrhythmic death rates were similar in both groups (13.1% vs 11.5%).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HF complicated with AF, those with PAF were more likely to receive antiarrhythmic agents, less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapy, but developed worse 1-year outcome compared with patients with N-PAF. These findings further emphasize the importance of optimal guideline-recommended medical therapy in patients with HF.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCT)s showed similar outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) compared to rate control therapy. We sought to evaluate whether catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFrEF.

Methods

We searched electronic databases for all RCTs that compared catheter ablation and medical therapy (with or without use of AAD). We used random-effects models to summarize the studies. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included heart failure-related hospitalizations and change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Results

We retrieved and summarized 7 randomized controlled trials, enrolling 856 patients (429 in the catheter ablation arm and 427 in the medical therapy arm). Compared with medical therapy (including use of AAD), AF catheter ablation was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.74; P = 0.0005) and heart failure-related hospitalizations (risk ratio 0.56; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.71; P < 0.0001). Furthermore, catheter ablation led to significant improvements in LVEF (weighted mean difference, 7.48; 95% CI: 3.71 to 11.26; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Compared to medical therapy, including use of AAD, catheter ablation for AF was associated with a significant reduction in mortality and heart failure-related hospitalizations as well as an improvement in LVEF in patients with HFrEF. Larger trials are needed to confirm whether rhythm control with ablation is superior to rate control in patients with AF and heart failure.

KSHF Guidelines for the Management of Acute Heart Failure: Part III. Specific Management of Acute Heart Failure According to the Etiology and Co-morbidity

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is on the rise due to the aging of society. Furthermore, the continuous progress and widespread adoption of screening and diagnostic strategies have led to an increase in the detection rate of HF, effectively increasing the number of patients requiring monitoring and treatment. Because HF is associated with substantial rates of mortality and morbidity, as well as high socioeconomic burden, there is an increasing need for developing specific guidelines for HF management. The Korean guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure (CHF) were introduced in March 2016. However, CHF and acute heart failure (AHF) represent distinct disease entities. Here, we introduce the Korean guidelines for the management of AHF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Part III of this guideline covers management strategies optimized according to the etiology of AHF and the presence of co-morbidities.

Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current State and Future Directions

Heart failure affects nearly 26 million people worldwide. Patients with heart failure are frequently affected with atrial fibrillation, and the interrelation between these pathologies is complex. Atrial fibrillation shares the same risk factors as heart failure. Moreover, it is associated with a higher-risk baseline clinical status and higher mortality rates in patients with heart failure. The mechanisms by which atrial fibrillation occurs in a failing heart are incompletely understood, but animal studies suggest they differ from those that occur in a healthy heart. Data suggest that heart failure-induced atrial fibrosis and atrial ionic remodeling are the underlying abnormalities that facilitate atrial fibrillation. Therapeutic considerations for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure include risk factor modification and guideline-directed medical therapy, anticoagulation, rate control, and rhythm control. As recommended for atrial fibrillation in the non-failing heart, anticoagulation in patients with heart failure should be guided by a careful estimation of the risk of embolic events versus the risk of hemorrhagic episodes. The decision whether to target a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy is an evolving aspect of management. Currently, both approaches are good medical practice, but recent data suggest that rhythm control, particularly when achieved through catheter ablation, is associated with improved outcomes. A promising field of research is the application of neurohormonal modulation to prevent the creation of the "structural substrate" for atrial fibrillation in the failing heart.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Catheter-Guided Ablation Versus Conventional Medical Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The prognostic benefit of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation in the setting of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) is unclear. A systematic search of medical literature was limited to randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were HF hospitalizations, stroke, left ventricular EF improvement, change in 6-minute walk test, and change in Minnesota living with HF questionnaire (Δ MLHFQ). Random effects risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous ones, using Der-Simonian and Liard model. A total of 775 ambulatory patients from 6 trials were included. The mean EF was 31% with a mean New York Heart Association classification class 2.5. At a mean follow-up of 26 months, CA was associated with lower incidences of all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 0.74, I² = 0%, p <0.0001), and HF hospitalizations (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81, p = 0.002, I² = 0%), with similar incidences of stroke. Left ventricular EF improvement (SMD = 2.58, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.27), and change in Minnesota living with heart failure HF questionnaire (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14) were also in favor of CA, with no difference noted in change in 6-minute walk test. The incidence of all reported procedural complications (including major and minor) was 7.3%. In conclusion, CA of atrial fibrillation appears to be associated with improved survival and HF hospitalizations compared with medical therapy, with evidence of low ablation-related complications.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Untangling a Modern Gordian Knot

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) share common risk factors and frequently coexist. Both are highly prevalent in our aging population, and mortality associated with the combination is significantly higher than for each alone. An intricate link exists between AF and HF, including interrelated mechanisms and pathophysiology. Asymptomatic left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction can exacerbate or be exacerbated by AF, resulting in HF with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction. A number of treatment strategies have improved symptoms, exercise tolerance, and quality of life for patients with HF, but few have resulted in alteration in prognosis. Sinus rhythm, achieved pharmacologically, has not altered important outcomes, including cardiovascular or total mortality in patients with HF. In recent studies, catheter ablation to achieve sinus rhythm seems to have a significant impact on symptoms, heart function, and possibly mortality. Until future studies can confirm or clarify the impact of catheter ablation on outcomes, the field remains cautious but optimistic that better treatment strategies for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction are within reach.

Treatment Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction - Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexists with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). This meta-analysis compared AF control strategies, that is, rhythm vs. rate, and catheter ablation (CA) vs. anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) in patients with AF combined with HF.Methods and Results:The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched, and 13 articles from 11 randomized controlled trials with 5,256 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes were echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular EF, LVEF), left atrial (LA) size, and left ventricular end-systolic volume, LVESV), clinical outcomes (mortality, hospitalization, and thromboembolism), exercise capacity, and quality of life (QOL). In a random effects model, rhythm control was associated with higher LVEF, better exercise capacity, and better QOL than the rate control. When the 2 different rhythm control strategies were compared (CA vs. AAD), the CA group had significantly decreased LA size and LVESV, and improved LVEF and 6-min walk distance, but mortality, hospitalization, and thromboembolism rates were not different between the rhythm and rate control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In AF combined with HF, even though mortality, hospitalization and thromboembolism rates were similar, a rhythm control strategy was superior to rate control in terms of improvement in LVEF, exercise capacity, and QOL. In particular, the CA group was superior to the AAD group for reversal of cardiac remodeling.