Catheter Ablation for Rate-Controlled Atrial Fibrillation: New Horizon in Heart Failure Treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wazni OM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6476416 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Catheter Ablation for Rate-Controlled Atrial Fibrillation: New Horizon in Heart Failure Treatment.
Wazni Oussama M OM Chung Mina K MK
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20170827 16
Similar Datasets
Project description:Many trials have shown improvements in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and quality of life after catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). We sought to evaluate the impact of CA on hard outcomes in a retrospective cohort study. AF patients with symptomatic HF from 3 hospitals were included. Our primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and unplanned hospitalization. In total, 90 patients underwent CA and 304 ones received rate control (RaC) were included. After a mean follow-up of 13.5 ± 5.3 months, 82.2% of patients in CA group got freedom from AF; all patients in RaC group remained in AF. CA group had a significant decreased risk of MACEs compared with RaC group (13.3% vs 29.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.82, P = .005). After propensity score matched for confounding factors, difference in MACEs remained significant between groups (13.3% vs 25.6%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.98, P = .044). Multivariate regression analysis also indicated that CA was significantly associated with a lower risk of MACEs in overall cohort (HR 0.486, 95% CI: 0.253-0.933, P = .030) and in propensity-matched cohort (HR 0.482, 95% CI: 0.235-0.985, P = .045). Besides, age and NYHA class were associated with an increased risk of MACEs. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that CA for AF in HF patients could reduce the risk of MACEs in a mid-term follow-up. Thus, CA may be a reasonable option for this population.
| S-EPMC5728981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Catheter ablation is an important rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with concomitant heart failure (HF). The objective of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of AF ablation patients with ischemic vs nonischemic heart failure. Methods:We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with HF who underwent AF ablation. Outcomes were compared based on HF etiology and included in-hospital events, symptoms (Mayo AF Symptom Inventory [MAFSI]), and functional status (New York Heart Association class) and freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months. Results:Among 242 patients (n = 70 [29%] ischemic, n = 172 [71%] nonischemic), patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy were younger (mean age 64 ± 11.5 vs 69 ± 9.1, P = .002), more often female (36% vs 17%, P = .004), and had higher mean left-ventricular ejection fraction (47% vs 42%, P = .0007). There were no significant differences in periprocedural characteristics, including mean procedure time (243 ± 74.2 vs 259 ± 81.8 minutes, P = .1) and nonleft atrial ablation (17% vs 20%, P = .6). All-cause adverse events were similar in each group (15% vs 17%, P = .7). NYHA and MAFSI scores improved significantly at follow-up and did not differ according to HF etiology (P = .5; P = .10-1.00 after Bonferroni correction). There were no significant differences in freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia at 12-months between ischemic (74%) and nonischemic patients (78%): adjusted RR 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.19. Conclusions:Catheter ablation in patients with AF and concomitant heart failure leads to significant improvements in functional and symptom status without significant differences between patients with ischemic vs nonischemic HF etiology.
| S-EPMC7011840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study aims to evaluate whether rhythm control by catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy for the patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). The literatures were searched by using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to 12 October 2023. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rhythm control using catheter ablation vs. medical therapy in AF patients with HF were pooled. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, HF re-hospitalization, and stroke, and the secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), atrial tachyarrythmia recurrence, quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, MLHFQ score), 6 min walking distance (6MWD), the level of N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP), and adverse events. Nine RCTs involving in 2293 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality [10.07% (121/1201) vs. 15.26% (175/1147), risk ratio (RR):0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.74, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%] and the rate of HF re-hospitalization (RR: 0.65, P = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.94, I2 = 74%), but had no obvious difference in incidence of stroke (RR: 0.67, P = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.38, I2 = 0%). Catheter ablation enhanced LVEF [mean difference (MD), 6.26%, P < 0.00001, I2 = 89%], reduced AT recurrence (RR: 0.37, P < 0.00001, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.52, I2 = 89%), improved the quality of life (MLHFQ score) (MD: -6.83, P = 0.003, I2 = 67%), elevated 6MWD (MD: 15.92, P = 0.006, I2 = 76%), and diminished the level NT-proBNP (MD: -44.19, P < 0.00001, I2 = 75%), but had no significant difference in adverse events [25.81% (310/1201) vs. 30.25% (347/1147), RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.01, P = 0.06, I2 = 55%]. Catheter ablation as rhythm control strategy substantially enhances the survival rate, reduces HF re-hospitalization, increases the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance, improves the left ventricular function and the quality of life for AF patients with HF, and has similar safety, compared with medical therapy. The rhythm control by catheter ablation may be a better strategy for the AF patients with HF.
| S-EPMC11424339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRandomized 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 resultsIn 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.ConclusionCompared 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.
| S-EPMC7203635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Assessing the cost-effectiveness credentials of this intervention in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) compared with usual medical therapy. DESIGN:A Markov model comprising two health states (ie, alive or dead) was constructed. The transition probabilities were directly derived from published Kaplan-Meier curves of the pivotal randomised controlled trial and extrapolated over the cohort's lifetime using recommended methods. Costs of catheter ablation, outpatient consultations, hospitalisation, medications and examinations were included. Resource use and unit costs were sourced from government websites or published literature. A lifetime horizon and a healthcare system perspective were taken. All costs and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were run around the key model parameters to test the robustness of the base case results. PARTICIPANTS:A hypothetical Australian cohort of patients with concomitant AF and HF who are resistant to antiarrhythmic treatment. INTERVENTIONS:Catheter ablation versus medical therapy. RESULTS:The catheter ablation was associated with a cost of $A44 377 per person, in comparison to $A28 506 for the medical therapy alone over a lifetime. Catheter ablation contributed to 4.58 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 6.99 LY gains compared with 4.30 QALYs and 6.53 LY gains, respectively, in the medical therapy arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A55 942/QALY or $A35 020/LY. The DSA showed that results were highly sensitive to costs of ablation and time horizon. The PSA yielded very consistent results with the base case. CONCLUSIONS:Offering catheter ablation procedure to patients with systematic paroxysmal or persistent AF who failed to respond to antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with higher costs, greater benefits. When compared with medical therapy alone, this intervention is not cost-effective from an Australia healthcare system perspective.
| S-EPMC6731807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: A plethora of studies have elucidated the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) for patients afflicted with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nevertheless, the literature on the benefits of CA in the specific etiological context of heart failure (HF) remains limited. This study delineates a comparative assessment of outcomes for patients with AF and reduced LVEF across the primary etiologies. (2) Methods: Our inquiry encompassed 216 patients diagnosed with congestive heart failure and an LVEF of less than 50 percent who were referred to our institution for circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI) between the years 2016 and 2020. The selection criteria included a detailed medical history while excluding those suffering from valvular disease, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In an effort to scrutinize varying etiologies, patients were stratified into three categories: dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM, n = 56, 30.6%), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 68, 37.2%), and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC, n = 59, 32.2%). (3) Results: Following an average (±SD) duration of 36 ± 3 months, the prevalence of sinus rhythm was 52.1% in the DCM group, 50.0% in the ICM group, and 68.14% in the TIC group (p = 0.014). This study revealed a significant disparity between the DCM and TIC groups (p = 0.021) and the ICM and TIC groups (p = 0.007), yet no significant distinction was discerned between the TIC and ICM groups (p = 0.769). Importantly, there were no significant variations in the application of antiarrhythmic drugs or recurrence of procedures among the three groups. The mortality rates were 14.29% for the DCM group and 14.71% for the ICM group, which were higher than the 3.39% observed in the TIC group (DCM vs. TIC p = 0.035 (HR = 4.50 (95%CI 1.38-14.67)), ICM vs. TIC p = 0.021 (HR = 5.00 (95%CI 1.61-15.50))). A noteworthy enhancement in heart function was evidenced in the TIC group in comparison to the DCM and ICM groups, including a higher LVEF (p < 0.001), diminution of LV end-diastolic diameter (p < 0.001), and an enhanced New York Heart Association classification (p = 0.005). Hospitalization rates for heart failure were discernibly lower in TIC patients (0.98 (0,2) times) relative to those with DCM (1.74 (0,3) times, p < 0.01) and TIC (1.78 (0,4) times, p < 0.001). Patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and brief episodes were found to achieve superior clinical outcomes through a catheter ablation strategy. (4) Conclusion: Patients diagnosed with TIC demonstrated a more pronounced benefit from catheter ablation compared to those with DCM and ICM. This encompassed an augmented improvement in cardiac function, an enhanced maintenance of sinus rhythm, and a reduced mortality rate.
| S-EPMC10607920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coincide. Female sex is associated with both increased prevalence of HFpEF and reduced therapeutic efficacy of catheter ablation of AF. This sub-analysis of the previously published AFFECT-study evaluates outcome after cryoballoon-ablation in women with and without HFpEF.MethodsOne-hundred-and-two patients (LVEF ≥ 50%) scheduled for cryoballoon-ablation of AF were prospectively enrolled. Forty-two were female. Comprehensive baseline assessment included echocardiography, stress echocardiography, six-minute-walk-test, biomarker- and quality-of-life-assessment (QoL, SF-36), and was repeated at follow-up ≥12 months after AF-ablation. Baseline parameters, procedural characteristics and outcome after AF-ablation were compared between women with and without HFpEF.ResultsWomen with HFpEF (n = 20) were characterized by higher median left atrial volume index (35.8 ml/m2 vs. 25.8 ml/m2, P < 0.001), left ventricular hypertrophy (median left ventricular mass index: 92.0 g/m2 vs. 83.0 g/m2, P = 0.027), reduced distance in the 6-min-walk-test (median: 453 m vs. 527 m, P = 0.008) and higher left atrial pressures (median: 14.0 mmHg vs.9.5 mmHg, P = 0.008) compared to women without HFpEF (n = 21). During follow-up, HFpEF-patients more often experienced AF-related re-hospitalization (36.8% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.039) and numerically higher AF-recurrence-rates (57.9% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.109). There was no significant improvement of heart failure-related symptoms, echocardiographic parameters and cardiac biomarkers levels. QoL showed no significant improvement in both subgroups. Women with HFpEF still exhibited a lower SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score vs. women without HFpEF (median: 41.2 vs. 52.1, P < 0.001).ConclusionWomen with HFpEF constitute a distinct subgroup with high rates of AF-related events after AF-ablation, and persistence of both symptoms and functional hallmarks of HFpEF. Consideration of sex-specific cardiac co-morbidities is crucial for personalization and optimization of AF-therapy.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05603611.
| S-EPMC11586357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prognostic role of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) remains uncertain, with guideline recommendations largely based on a single trial. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the prognostic impact of AF ablation in patients with HF.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for RCTs comparing 'AF ablation' versus 'other care' (medical therapy and/or atrioventricular node ablation with pacing) in patients with HF. Primary endpoints were ≥1-year mortality, HF hospitalization and change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects modelling.ResultsNine RCTs (n = 1462) met inclusion criteria. Compared to 'other care', AF ablation significantly reduced ≥1-year mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.65; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.49-0.87) and HF hospitalization (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.81). AF ablation demonstrated significantly greater improvement in LVEF (mean difference [MD] 5.4; 95% CI, 4.4-6.4), 6-min walk test distance (MD 21.5 meters; 95% CI, 4.6-38.4) and quality of life as measured by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (MD 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-11.7). Meta-regression analyses showed the beneficial impact of AF ablation on LVEF was significantly blunted by higher prevalence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrates AF ablation is superior to 'other care' in improving mortality, HF hospitalization, LVEF and quality of life in patients with HF. However, the highly selected study populations in included RCTs and effect modification mediated by etiology of HF suggests these benefits do not uniformly apply across the HF population.
| S-EPMC10068943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a little evidence for the effects of catheter ablation (CA) on hard endpoints in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF).MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with AF and HF who were assigned to CA, rate control or medical rhythm control groups. This meta-analysis was performed by using random-effect models.ResultsSeven RCTs enrolling 856 participants were included in this meta-analysis. CA reduced the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76), HF readmission (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.66) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF readmission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.66) when compared with control. But there was no significant difference in cerebrovascular accident (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.36) between two groups. Compared with control, CA was associated with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 7.57, 95% CI 3.72 to 11.41), left ventricular end systolic volume (MD -14.51, 95% CI -26.84 to - 2.07), and left ventricular end diastolic volume (MD -3.78, 95% CI -18.51 to 10.96). Patients undergoing CA exhibited increased peak oxygen consumption (MD 3.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.23), longer 6-min walk test distance (MD 26.67, 95% CI 12.07 to 41.27), and reduced Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (MD -9.49, 95% CI -14.64 to - 4.34) than those in control group. Compared with control, CA was associated with improved New York Heart Association class (MD -0.74, 95% CI -0.83 to - 0.64) and lower B-type natriuretic peptide levels (MD -105.96, 95% CI -230.56 to 19.64).ConclusionsCA was associated with improved survival, morphologic changes, functional capacity and quality of life relative to control. CA should be considered in patients with AF and HF.
| S-EPMC6090632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCatheter ablation is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). However, little is known about how healthcare utilization and cost change after ablation in this population. We sought to determine healthcare utilization and cost patterns among patients with AF and HF undergoing ablation.MethodsUsing a large United States administrative database, we identified (n = 1568) treated with ablation with a primary and secondary diagnosis of AF and HF, respectively, were evaluated 1-year pre- and postablation for outcomes including inpatient admissions (AF or HF), emergency department (ED) visits, cardioversions, length of stay (LOS), and cost. A secondary analysis was extended to 3-years postablation.ResultsReductions were observed in AF-related admissions (64%), LOS (65%), cardioversions (52%), ED visits (51%, all values, p < .0001), and HF-related admissions (22%, p = .01). There was a 40% reduction in inpatient admission cost ($4165 preablation to $2510 postablation, p < .0001). In a sensitivity analysis excluding repeat-ablation patients, a greater reduction in overall AF management cost was observed compared to the full cohort (-43% vs. -2%). Comparing 1-year pre- to 3-years postablation, both total mean AF-management cost ($850 per-patient per-month 1-year pre- to $546 3-years postablation, p < .0001) and AF-related healthcare utilization was reduced.ConclusionsCatheter ablation in patients with AF and HF resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization and cost through 3-years of follow-up. This reduction was observed regardless of whether repeat ablation was performed, reflecting the positive impact of ablation on longer term cost reduction.
| S-EPMC7821325 | biostudies-literature