Catheter Ablation for Rate-Controlled Atrial Fibrillation: New Horizon in Heart Failure Treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wazni OM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6476416 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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: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-other
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: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:Heart failure (HF) and AF frequently coexist and are involved in a vicious cycle of adverse pathophysiologic interactions. Applying treatment algorithms that have been validated in the general AF population to patients with AF and HF may be fraught with risks and lack effectiveness. While firm recommendations on using catheter ablation for AF do exist, the subset of patients also suffering from HF needs to be further evaluated. Observational data indicate that a significant number of ablation procedures are performed in patients with coexistent HF. Initial randomised data on outcomes are encouraging. Apart from sinus rhythm maintenance, benefits have been observed in terms of other significant endpoints, including left ventricular ejection fraction, quality of life, exercise capacity and hospital readmissions for HF. Limited existing data on survival are also promising. In the present article, observational and randomised studies along with current practice guidelines are summarised.
| S-EPMC6304798 | 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
Project description:Whether catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves survival and affects other outcomes in real-world heart failure (HF) patients is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether ablation reduces death, and other outcomes in real-world AF patients with HF. Among 834,735 patients with AF from 2006 to 2015 in the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, 3173 HF patients underwent AF ablation. Propensity score weighting was used to correct for differences between the groups. During median 54 months follow-up, the risk of all-cause death in ablated patients was less than half of that in patients with medical therapy (2.8 vs. 6.2 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.65, p < 0.001). Ablation was related with lower risk of cardiovascular death (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.62, p < 0.001), HF admission (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33-0.46, p < 0.001) and stroke/systemic embolism (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the risk of all-cause death was reduced in most subgroups except in the elderly (≥ 75 years) and strictly anticoagulated patients. Ablation may be associated with reduced risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular death in real-world AF patients with HF, supporting the role of AF ablation in patients with HF.
| S-EPMC7907229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure.Methods and resultsWe systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses.ConclusionIn patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.
| S-EPMC9934993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The optimal catheter ablation (CA) strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) and heart failure (HF) remains uncertain. Between 2016 and 2020, 118 consecutive patients with PeAF and HF who underwent the CA procedure in two centers were retrospectively evaluated and divided into the pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only and PVI + additional ablation groups. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at baseline, one month, and 12 months after the CA procedure. The HF symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvements were analyzed. Fifty-six patients underwent PVI only, and 62 patients received PVI with additional ablation. Compared with the baseline, a significant improvement in the LVEF and left atrial diameter postablation was observed in all patients. No significant HF improvement was detected in the PVI + additional ablation group than in the PVI-only group (74.2% vs. 71.4%, P = 0.736), but the procedure and ablation time were significantly longer (137.4 ± 7.5 vs. 123.1 ± 11.5 min, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the change in TTE parameters and the number of rehospitalizations. For patients with PeAF and HF, CA appears to improve left ventricular function. Additional ablation does not improve outcomes and has a significantly longer procedure time. Trial registration number is as follows: ChiCTR2100053745 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx).
| S-EPMC9246569 | biostudies-literature