Next Article in Journal
Associations of BDNF/BDNF-AS SNPs with Depression, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar Disorder
Next Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic Analysis of Tight Junction Proteins Demonstrates the Aberrant Expression and Function of Zona Occludens 2 (ZO-2) Protein in Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing Machine Learning Classifiers for Predicting Hospital Readmission of Heart Failure Patients in Rwanda
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/jpm13091394
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities

by
Sho Suzuki
1,2,
Takeshi Kitai
1,*,
John Skoularigis
3,
Kyriakos Spiliopoulos
4 and
Andrew Xanthopoulos
3,*
1
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka 564-8565, Japan
2
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Nagano 390-8621, Japan
3
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Larissa, 41110 Larissa, Greece
4
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, 41110 Larissa, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(9), 1394; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091394
Submission received: 18 August 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 15 September 2023 / Published: 18 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precision and Targeted Therapy in Cardiac Surgery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are highly prevalent cardiac disorders worldwide, and both are associated with poor prognosis. The incidence of AF and HF has been increasing substantially in recent years, mainly due to the progressive aging of the population. These disorders often coexist, and may have a causal relationship, with one contributing to the development or progression of the other. AF is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients, including mortality, hospitalization, and stroke. Although the optimal treatment for AF with HF remains unclear, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a promising treatment option. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of CA for managing AF in HF patients. In addition, the potential benefits and risks associated with CA are also discussed. We will also explore the factors that may influence treatment outcomes and highlight the remaining gaps in knowledge in this field.

1. Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are both common cardiac disorders associated with poor prognosis [1,2,3,4]. These conditions often coexist, and one potentially leads to the other [5]. In patients with HF, AF is present in 10 to 60% of cases [1,5,6,7,8] and is more common in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%) than in HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF 41–49%) or HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤ 40%) [7,9]. The coexistence of AF and HF is associated with increased risks of mortality, HF hospitalization, and stroke [5,6,7,9]. The absence of an atrial kick and the irregular rhythm of the ventricle in AF will decrease stroke volume and make HF more difficult to control. In addition, increased heart rate in AF will shorten the filling time, which may lead to further deterioration of cardiac function [10]. Conversely, myocardial remodeling and activation of neurohormonal systems in HF risk the development of AF [11,12].
Over the past three decades, the prognosis of HFrEF has improved due to stepwise advancements in pharmacological/non-pharmacological treatment [13,14]. However, AF is still an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in these patients [5,7,9], and radical treatment should be considered.
The current guidelines recommend catheter ablation (CA) in patients with AF and HF who remain symptomatic on medical therapy, with an emphasis on HFrEF while acknowledging the importance of patient selection [15,16,17,18]. Over the past decade, advances in CA technology have resulted in improved success rates and a reduced risk of complications, making CA a viable option for many patients with AF and HF. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence focusing on CA against AF patients with HF and discuss the inconsistent treatment effect in the literature.

2. Catheter Ablation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The optimal role of CA in managing AF patients with HFrEF is currently less clearly defined than in AF patients without HF. While current guidelines recommend CA for rhythm control in symptomatic, recurrent, and drug-resistant AF patients without HF, its use in those with HFrEF remains a topic of ongoing debate among researchers and clinicians [15,19]. In AF patients with HF, CA is often considered the second-line therapy following medical treatment, except in particular conditions, such as when tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is highly suspected [15,16,17,18]. However, in AF patients with HF, it is difficult to determine whether their symptoms are arrhythmia-related, and CA should be considered if HF is unmanageable regardless of symptoms. Especially in HF, the negative inotropic effect of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) may be a risk for worsening HF, and an earlier CA may be worth considering. Current guidelines state that CA for AF with HF improves quality of life (QOL), symptoms, and LVEF, while only mentioning the potential effect of improving prognosis [15,16,17,18].
To date, a total of nine prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, investigating the efficacy of CA in patients with AF and HFrEF, with some trials also including HFmrEF and HFpEF (Table 1) [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. In patients with symptomatic HF (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ II), the effect of CA was compared with medical rate/rhythm control or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing. Here, we summarize the study results of the completed RCTs.

2.1. Effect on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in HFrEF

All nine trials assessed the effect of CA on LVEF, five of which investigated the increase in LVEF as the trial’s primary endpoint. Seven trials evaluated LVEF with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), and the remaining two evaluated LVEF with radionuclide ventriculography. Notably, a rhythm control with CA improved LVEF compared to baseline in all studies (Figure 1). Six studies showed a significant increase in LVEF in the CA group compared with pharmacological treatment (rate/rhythm control) or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing. In contrast, three studies did not show significant differences in LVEF improvement between CA and pharmacological treatment. MacDonald et al. enrolled 41 patients with persistent AF and symptomatic HF with LVEF < 35% (mean 18%) measured by radionuclide ventriculography, and compared the change in LVEF measured by cardiac magnetic resonance after six months between CA and pharmacological rate control [21]. The increase in cardiac magnetic resonance LVEF in the CA group was +5% compared with +3% in the pharmacological treatment group (p = 0.6). However, in this study, the sinus rhythm (SR) restoration rate in the CA group was only 50%, and half of the patients undergoing CA were in AF after six months. The 10 patients who were in SR after six months had a significantly higher increase in LVEF of 10% compared to 1.5% who remained AF (p = 0.008). As the authors pointed out, the low success rate of CA would have affected the results. The ARC-HF (A Randomised Trial to Assess Catheter Ablation Versus Rate Control in the Management of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure) trial [22], compared the effect of CA with pharmacological rate control in 52 patients with persistent AF and symptomatic HF with LVEF <35% (mean 24%) measured by radionuclide ventriculography. There was a nonsignificant trend toward LVEF improvement (+10.9% vs. +5.4%, p = 0.055) in the CA arm. The recently published AMICA (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) trial [27] compared the effect of CA with best medical therapy (rate/rhythm control) in 140 patients with persistent AF and symptomatic HF with LVEF ≤35% (mean 26%) measured by TTE. There was no difference in LVEF improvement (+9% vs. +7%, p = 0.36) under a 74% maintenance of SR in patients who underwent CA. These study results differed from other previous RCTs, including results from the AATAC (Ablation vs. Amiodarone for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted ICD/CRTD) trial [24] and the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial [26]. One possible reason for the inconsistent results is that the AMICA trial also showed a 7.3% increase in LVEF in the medical therapy group; the LVEF improvement in the medical therapy group was higher than in other studies, which may have contributed to the study results. The LVEF improvement in the CA group in the AMICA trial was comparable to other studies. Another reason may be that the three studies [21,22,27] which did not show positive results in LVEF improvement had lower basal LVEF than other studies. As the CAMERA-MRI (Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Dysfunction) trial [25] reported that a greater improvement in LVEF was observed in patients without late gadolinium enhancement, there may be a less beneficial effect in LVEF improvement with CA in severely impaired cardiac function. In addition, two of the nine trials included paroxysmal AF in their study, while the other seven consisted of patients with persistent AF. Although the mean left atrium diameter was 46–51 mm, with no apparent correlation with paroxysmal AF, the mean duration of AF varied, ranging from 0.7 to 4.4 years. While not immediately evident, this could suggest potential discrepancies in the stage of AF represented across the trials. Identifying a precise LVEF threshold to delineate the efficacy of CA would be clinically beneficial. However, to date, empirical evidence supporting such a threshold remains elusive, necessitating further rigorous studies in the future. In any case, the improvement of LVEF with CA in patients with AF and HFrEF may have been somewhat established, especially in earlier treatment.

2.2. Effect on Quality of Life in HFrEF

Seven trials [20,21,22,23,24,27,28] investigated the impact of CA on QOL by evaluating the changes in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) score (Figure 2). The MLHFQ is one of the most widely used questionnaires to assess health-related QOL for patients with HF, which has demonstrated good psychometric properties in numerous studies [29,30]. The questionnaire comprises 21 questions about physical, emotional, and socioeconomic situations. Patients mark a 0–5 scale to each question, and the summation of all 21 questions will produce the MLHFQ score. A lower MLHFQ score is indicative of a better QOL for the patient. Patients’ QOL improved after a rhythm control with CA in all studies. Five studies [20,22,23,24,28] showed a significant decrease in MLHFQ scores in the CA group compared with pharmacological treatment (rate/rhythm control) or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing. The two studies which did not show a significant difference in MLHFQ score improvement between CA and pharmacological treatment were the RCT reported from Scotland [21], and the AMICA trial [27]. It is plausible that the negative results in these two studies can be attributed to the same factors as those affecting LVEF. Therefore, it is possible that the effectiveness of CA in improving QOL was not adequately demonstrated in these studies.

2.3. Effect on Functional Capacity in HFrEF

All of the nine trials examined the impact of CA on functional capacity, with eight of them focusing on the change in the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) [20,21,22,24,25,26,27,28], while two studies investigated the change in peak oxygen consumption, with one of them examining both 6MWD and peak oxygen consumption [22,23]. The two studies that assessed the peak oxygen consumption change observed significant increases in the ablation arm compared to the pharmacological treatment arm. Regarding 6MWD, all studies showed an increase after a rhythm control with CA (Figure 3). While three studies [20,24,28] observed a significant improvement in 6MWD in the CA arm, four studies reported no significant increase in walking distance compared to the pharmacological treatment (rate/rhythm control) or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing. Interestingly, in the CASTLE-AF trial [26], the difference in 6MWD improvement between the CA group and the pharmacological treatment group was significant at 12 months’ follow-up (+41 m vs. +1 m, p = 0.001, n = 294) but not at 36 months’ follow-up (+10.5 m vs. +20 m, p = 0.38, n = 165) and 60 months’ follow-up (+0 m vs. −30 m, p = 0.67, n = 85). In addition, the distance in both groups varied through the follow-up period (observing a better increase in the pharmacological treatment arm at 36 months, but turning to a decrease after 60 months). It should be noted that due to the progressive nature of HFrEF and the recurrent nature of AF over time, accurately assessing the precise effect of CA on functional capacity through 6MWD may be challenging. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in Figure 3, it is apparent that CA confers at least a transient improvement in functional capacity.

2.4. Prognostic Impact of Catheter Ablation in HFrEF

The prognostic impact of CA in patients with HFrEF was evaluated by three trials [24,26,28]. The CASTLE-AF trial [26] was the first prospective multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the long-term prognostic impact of CA in patients with AF and HFrEF. This study compared CA with pharmacological treatment (rate/rhythm control) in 363 patients with symptomatic AF (including 118 patients with paroxysmal AF) and HF with LVEF < 35% (mean 32%). The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or worsening of HF that led to unplanned overnight hospitalization. During a mean follow-up period of 37.6 ± 20.4 months, the composite primary endpoint occurred in significantly fewer patients in the CA group than in the pharmacological treatment group (51/179 patients (28.5%) vs. 82/184 patients (44.6%), p = 0.006). In the secondary endpoints, the individual risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and HF-related admission was also lower in the CA group. On the other hand, the recently published RAFT-AF (Rhythm Control—Catheter Ablation With or Without Anti-arrhythmic Drug Control of Maintaining Sinus Rhythm Versus Rate Control With Medical Therapy and/or Atrio-ventricular Junction Ablation and Pacemaker Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation) trial [28] showed inconsistent results with the CASTLE-AF trial. The RAFT-AF trial compared the effect of CA with pharmacological rate control and/or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing in 411 patients with symptomatic AF (including 30 patients with paroxysmal AF) and HF (mean LVEF 41%). The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or HF events defined as an admission to a healthcare facility for >24 h or clinically worsening HF leading to the administration of intravenous in an emergency department or unscheduled visit to a healthcare provider, an increase in chronic HF therapy. During a median follow-up period of 37.4 [interquartile range 24.7–53.7] months, the composite primary endpoint occurred in 50/214 (23.4%) in the CA group compared with 64/197 (32.5%) in the rate-control group (p = 0.066). The combined Kaplan–Meier plots of each primary outcome in the two trials are shown in Figure 4. Two possible reasons for the inconsistent results of the two studies are as follows. First, in the RAFT-AF trial, atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing was performed in patients who were uncontrollable with pharmacological rate control, and rate control was more rigorous than in the CASTLE-AF trial. This could be one of the reasons why the RAFT-AF trial had a lower event rate in the control group than in the CASTLE-AF trial, which may have influenced the results. Second, there were no limits of LVEF in the inclusion criteria of the RAFT-AF trial, and patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF were included in the study. As noted in the later section, the effect of CA in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF are still not well established, and further research is necessary. Moreover, sub-group analysis in the RAFT-AF trial showed that patients with higher LVEF contributed more to the negative results (patients with LVEF ≤45% showed more favorable results for CA than those with LVEF > 45%). The mean LVEF of 41% in the RAFT-AF trial was the highest in all nine trials, which could be another reason for the discrepancy in the Kaplan–Meier curve between the two studies. The AATAC trial [24] investigated the effect of CA in 203 patients with persistent AF and symptomatic HF with LVEF < 40% (mean 30%) and compared the risk of all-cause mortality and HF-related unplanned hospitalization with amiodarone administration. Over a 2-year follow-up, the risk of death and HF-related unplanned hospitalization were both significantly lower in the CA arm. Based on the available evidence, it appears that CA may have a positive impact on the prognosis of patients with AF and HFrEF. However, there is a need for further studies to confirm these findings.

2.5. Complication Risks and Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence

Data from prospective registry studies indicate that complications occur in around 4–14% of patients who undergo CA for AF, with 2–3% of these complications being potentially life-threatening [15,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The complication rates were 0–15% in the nine RCTs [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] regarding CA for AF patients with HF, 0–4.7% of which were potentially life-threatening, and the frequency of complications was similar (exceptionally, MacDonald et al. reported fatal complications in 3 of 27 patients). However, patients who underwent CA in the RCTs of AF and HF were relatively young, around a mean age of 60. Older patients will be eligible in actual clinical practice, which needs to be noted.
Given the added consideration of repeated CA procedures and the use of AADs, determining the exact recurrence rate and the follow-up period for AF recurrence presents a challenge. AF recurrence is monitored through a 12-lead electrocardiogram, 24/48 h Holter monitoring, implantable loop recorders, or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRTD). The general SR maintenance rates after CA have been reported to range from 63 to 84% in most studies with a follow-up period of 2 to 5 years [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Although SR maintenance rates in RCTs similarly range from 63 to 86%, the follow-up was relatively shorter, ranging from 0.5 to 2 years [20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The CASTLE-AF trial was the only study that investigated the long-term (5 years) effect of CA in patients with AF and HFrEF. This may be explained by the natural progression of HFrEF, which generally has a poor prognosis compared to conditions without HF.
Several risk factors for AF recurrence after AF ablation have been identified, including patient age, left atrium size, AF duration, renal dysfunction, and LGE in MRI [15,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. In particular, left atrium volume and left atrium structure have been reported to not only be significant predictors of AF recurrence after CA [55,58,59] but also be associated with left ventricular function [60,61]. These are essential factors to consider in treatment strategies for both AF and HF. It is evident that there is a lack of consensus among the various risk prediction models currently available to identify patients who are at a higher risk of AF recurrence following CA [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. Hence, additional investigations are required to identify risk factors for AF recurrence in patients with HF, which would assist in determining patient selection for CA.

2.6. Catheter Ablation for Advanced Heart Failure

Although CA has demonstrated beneficial effects in several studies and should be considered a first-line treatment option for selected patients with HFrEF, its efficacy in the context of advanced or end-stage HF remains to be fully elucidated. This is primarily due to the exclusion of patients with advanced HF from these studies.
Recently, the CASTLE-HTx (Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with End-Stage Heart Failure and Eligibility for Heart Transplantation) trial [71] assessed the safety and efficacy of CA in patients with end-stage HF who were considered for heart transplantation or implantation of a left ventricular assist device. This study compared CA with pharmacological treatment in 194 patients with symptomatic AF, with 68% of the enrolled patients classified as NYHA class ≥ III. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or urgent heart transplantation. During a median follow-up period of 18.0 [14.6–22.6] months, the composite primary endpoint occurred in significantly fewer patients in the CA group compared to the pharmacological treatment group (8/97 patients (8.2%) vs. 29/97 patients (30.0%), p < 0.001). These findings suggest that CA might also hold promise as an effective therapeutic strategy in treating advanced HF.

3. Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

AF and HFpEF are age-related, frequently coexisting, and likewise share common mechanisms and risk factors [7,72,73,74,75]. Previous studies clearly show that AF is associated with poor prognosis in patients with HFpEF [75,76,77,78,79,80]. Thus, early treatment of AF is equally important in patients with HFpEF. Atrial remodeling in HFpEF typically results in impaired ventricular diastolic function [61], and the maintenance of SR would be key to improve clinical outcomes in these patients. However, limited data are available regarding the effectiveness, safety, and rate of maintaining sinus rhythm with CA in patients diagnosed with both AF and HFpEF. Observational studies investigating the prognostic significance of CA compared with pharmacological therapy are shown in Table 2. Among the three studies, two single-center retrospective studies reported that CA was independently associated with better prognosis in a small population [81,82]. Although a study from the United States national database showed no association between CA and better prognosis, this study lacked data regarding LVEF and the definition of HFpEF [83]. A sub-analysis from the CABANA trial [84], which investigated the prognostic impact of CA in AF patients with HF (whose median LVEF was 55%), showed a significant reduction of the primary composite outcome (death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, and cardiac arrest) in the CA arm [85]. The efficiency of CA in cases where AF leads to HFpEF and vice versa warrants future investigation. Currently, there are no completed RCTs that investigate the prognostic impact of CA compared with pharmacological therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF. It is reasonable to await the results of the upcoming AMPERE (Ablation Versus Medical Management of Atrial Fibrillation in HFpEF) trial and the CABA-HFPEF (CAtheter-Based Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Compared to Conventional Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial for further evidence.

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

This review has synthesized the available literature on the utilization of CA as a potential treatment for patients suffering from both AF and HF. While CA has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for this population, several unresolved issues persist that need to be addressed to optimize its application.
One of the primary challenges associated with CA for AF in HF patients is the controversial prognostic impact of the treatment. There are several factors that may influence the effect of CA in HF patients including the duration of AF, the progression of underlying cardiac disease, and the severity of HF. These factors must be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of CA and require further investigation. Another important consideration is the need to establish patient selection criteria and predictors of AF recurrence in AF patients with HF. This will require further research to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from CA and what the best approach is to predict the risk of AF recurrence. Finally, the effect of CA in AF patients with HFpEF remains unclear, and further research is needed to understand the potential benefits and risks associated with the treatment in this population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and T.K. and A.X.; methodology, J.S. and K.S.; resources, S.S. and T.K.; data curation, S.S., T.K., K.S., J.S. and A.X.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S., T.K. and A.X.; writing—review and editing, K.S. and J.S.; visualization, S.S., T.K. and A.X.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Roy, D.; Talajic, M.; Nattel, S.; Wyse, D.G.; Dorian, P.; Lee, K.L.; Bourassa, M.G.; Arnold, J.M.; Buxton, A.E.; Camm, A.J.; et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 2667–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nohria, A.; Lewis, E.; Stevenson, L.W. Medical management of advanced heart failure. JAMA 2002, 287, 628–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yamashita, Y.; Hamatani, Y.; Esato, M.; Chun, Y.H.; Tsuji, H.; Wada, H.; Hasegawa, K.; Abe, M.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Akao, M. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Extreme Elderly (Age ≥ 85 Years) Japanese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The Fushimi AF Registry. Chest 2016, 149, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Moser, D.K.; Mann, D.L. Improving outcomes in heart failure: It’s not unusual beyond usual care. Circulation 2002, 105, 2810–2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Santhanakrishnan, R.; Wang, N.; Larson, M.G.; Magnani, J.W.; McManus, D.D.; Lubitz, S.A.; Ellinor, P.T.; Cheng, S.; Vasan, R.S.; Lee, D.S.; et al. Atrial Fibrillation Begets Heart Failure and Vice Versa: Temporal Associations and Differences in Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circulation 2016, 133, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sato, N.; Kajimoto, K.; Asai, K.; Mizuno, M.; Minami, Y.; Nagashima, M.; Murai, K.; Muanakata, R.; Yumino, D.; Meguro, T.; et al. Acute decompensated heart failure syndromes (ATTEND) registry. A prospective observational multicenter cohort study: Rationale, design, and preliminary data. Am. Heart J. 2010, 159, 949–955.e941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sartipy, U.; Dahlström, U.; Fu, M.; Lund, L.H. Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Preserved, Mid-Range, and Reduced Ejection Fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2017, 5, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hamaguchi, S.; Yokoshiki, H.; Kinugawa, S.; Tsuchihashi-Makaya, M.; Yokota, T.; Takeshita, A.; Tsutsui, H. Effects of atrial fibrillation on long-term outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure in Japan: A report from the Japanese Cardiac Registry of Heart Failure in Cardiology (JCARE-CARD). Circ. J. 2009, 73, 2084–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Son, M.K.; Park, J.J.; Lim, N.K.; Kim, W.H.; Choi, D.J. Impact of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced, mid-range or preserved ejection fraction. Heart 2020, 106, 1160–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crijns, H.J.; Van den Berg, M.P.; Van Gelder, I.C.; Van Veldhuisen, D.J. Management of atrial fibrillation in the setting of heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 1997, 18 (Suppl. C), 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carlisle, M.A.; Fudim, M.; DeVore, A.D.; Piccini, J.P. Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation, Like Fire and Fury. JACC Heart Fail. 2019, 7, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gorenek, B.; Halvorsen, S.; Kudaiberdieva, G.; Bueno, H.; Van Gelder, I.C.; Lettino, M.; Marin, F.; Masip, J.; Mueller, C.; Okutucu, S.; et al. Atrial fibrillation in acute heart failure: A position statement from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association and European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur. Heart J. Acute Cardiovasc. Care 2020, 9, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Owan, T.E.; Hodge, D.O.; Herges, R.M.; Jacobsen, S.J.; Roger, V.L.; Redfield, M.M. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vaduganathan, M.; Claggett, B.L.; Jhund, P.S.; Cunningham, J.W.; Pedro Ferreira, J.; Zannad, F.; Packer, M.; Fonarow, G.C.; McMurray, J.J.V.; Solomon, S.D. Estimating lifetime benefits of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A comparative analysis of three randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2020, 396, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hindricks, G.; Potpara, T.; Dagres, N.; Arbelo, E.; Bax, J.J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Boriani, G.; Castella, M.; Dan, G.A.; Dilaveris, P.E.; et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 373–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. January, C.T.; Wann, L.S.; Calkins, H.; Chen, L.Y.; Cigarroa, J.E.; Cleveland, J.C., Jr.; Ellinor, P.T.; Ezekowitz, M.D.; Field, M.E.; Furie, K.L.; et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2019, 140, e125–e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Böhm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Čelutkienė, J.; Chioncel, O.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3599–3726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Heidenreich, P.A.; Bozkurt, B.; Aguilar, D.; Allen, L.A.; Byun, J.J.; Colvin, M.M.; Deswal, A.; Drazner, M.H.; Dunlay, S.M.; Evers, L.R.; et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022, 145, e895–e1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. January, C.T.; Wann, L.S.; Alpert, J.S.; Calkins, H.; Cigarroa, J.E.; Cleveland, J.C., Jr.; Conti, J.B.; Ellinor, P.T.; Ezekowitz, M.D.; Field, M.E.; et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, e1–e76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khan, M.N.; Jaïs, P.; Cummings, J.; Di Biase, L.; Sanders, P.; Martin, D.O.; Kautzner, J.; Hao, S.; Themistoclakis, S.; Fanelli, R.; et al. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 1778–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. MacDonald, M.R.; Connelly, D.T.; Hawkins, N.M.; Steedman, T.; Payne, J.; Shaw, M.; Denvir, M.; Bhagra, S.; Small, S.; Martin, W.; et al. Radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced heart failure and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: A randomised controlled trial. Heart 2011, 97, 740–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jones, D.G.; Haldar, S.K.; Hussain, W.; Sharma, R.; Francis, D.P.; Rahman-Haley, S.L.; McDonagh, T.A.; Underwood, S.R.; Markides, V.; Wong, T. A randomized trial to assess catheter ablation versus rate control in the management of persistent atrial fibrillation in heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 61, 1894–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hunter, R.J.; Berriman, T.J.; Diab, I.; Kamdar, R.; Richmond, L.; Baker, V.; Goromonzi, F.; Sawhney, V.; Duncan, E.; Page, S.P.; et al. A randomized controlled trial of catheter ablation versus medical treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure (the CAMTAF trial). Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2014, 7, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Di Biase, L.; Mohanty, P.; Mohanty, S.; Santangeli, P.; Trivedi, C.; Lakkireddy, D.; Reddy, M.; Jais, P.; Themistoclakis, S.; Dello Russo, A.; et al. Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device: Results From the AATAC Multicenter Randomized Trial. Circulation 2016, 133, 1637–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Prabhu, S.; Taylor, A.J.; Costello, B.T.; Kaye, D.M.; McLellan, A.J.A.; Voskoboinik, A.; Sugumar, H.; Lockwood, S.M.; Stokes, M.B.; Pathik, B.; et al. Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Dysfunction: The CAMERA-MRI Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 1949–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Marrouche, N.F.; Brachmann, J.; Andresen, D.; Siebels, J.; Boersma, L.; Jordaens, L.; Merkely, B.; Pokushalov, E.; Sanders, P.; Proff, J.; et al. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuck, K.H.; Merkely, B.; Zahn, R.; Arentz, T.; Seidl, K.; Schlüter, M.; Tilz, R.R.; Piorkowski, C.; Gellér, L.; Kleemann, T.; et al. Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2019, 12, e007731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parkash, R.; Wells, G.A.; Rouleau, J.; Talajic, M.; Essebag, V.; Skanes, A.; Wilton, S.B.; Verma, A.; Healey, J.S.; Sterns, L.; et al. Randomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients with Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trial. Circulation 2022, 145, 1693–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rector, T.S. Patient’s self-assessment of their congestive heart failure: Content, reliability, validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Heart Fail. 1987, 3, 198–209. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bilbao, A.; Escobar, A.; García-Perez, L.; Navarro, G.; Quirós, R. The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: Comparison of different factor structures. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2016, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cappato, R.; Calkins, H.; Chen, S.A.; Davies, W.; Iesaka, Y.; Kalman, J.; Kim, Y.H.; Klein, G.; Natale, A.; Packer, D.; et al. Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2010, 3, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lee, G.; Sparks, P.B.; Morton, J.B.; Kistler, P.M.; Vohra, J.K.; Medi, C.; Rosso, R.; Teh, A.; Halloran, K.; Kalman, J.M. Low risk of major complications associated with pulmonary vein antral isolation for atrial fibrillation: Results of 500 consecutive ablation procedures in patients with low prevalence of structural heart disease from a single center. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2011, 22, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Arbelo, E.; Brugada, J.; Hindricks, G.; Maggioni, A.; Tavazzi, L.; Vardas, P.; Anselme, F.; Inama, G.; Jais, P.; Kalarus, Z.; et al. ESC-EURObservational Research Programme: The Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Pilot Study, conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2012, 14, 1094–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Murakawa, Y.; Nogami, A.; Hirao, K.; Shoda, M.; Aonuma, K.; Ikeguchi, S.; Iwa, T.; Ushinohama, H.; Uno, K.; Okishige, K.; et al. A brief report on the nationwide survey of catheter ablation in Japan/the Japanese Catheter Ablation Registry (JCAR). J. Arrhythm. 2012, 28, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Deshmukh, A.; Patel, N.J.; Pant, S.; Shah, N.; Chothani, A.; Mehta, K.; Grover, P.; Singh, V.; Vallurupalli, S.; Savani, G.T.; et al. In-hospital complications associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States between 2000 and 2010: Analysis of 93,801 procedures. Circulation 2013, 128, 2104–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Arbelo, E.; Brugada, J.; Hindricks, G.; Maggioni, A.P.; Tavazzi, L.; Vardas, P.; Laroche, C.; Anselme, F.; Inama, G.; Jais, P.; et al. The atrial fibrillation ablation pilot study: A European Survey on Methodology and results of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 1466–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arbelo, E.; Brugada, J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Laroche, C.; Kautzner, J.; Pokushalov, E.; Raatikainen, P.; Efremidis, M.; Hindricks, G.; Barrera, A.; et al. Contemporary management of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: In-hospital and 1-year follow-up findings from the ESC-EHRA atrial fibrillation ablation long-term registry. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 1303–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. De Greef, Y.; Ströker, E.; Schwagten, B.; Kupics, K.; De Cocker, J.; Chierchia, G.B.; de Asmundis, C.; Stockman, D.; Buysschaert, I. Complications of pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation: Predictors and comparison between four different ablation techniques: Results from the MIddelheim PVI-registry. Europace 2018, 20, 1279–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Steinbeck, G.; Sinner, M.F.; Lutz, M.; Müller-Nurasyid, M.; Kääb, S.; Reinecke, H. Incidence of complications related to catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: A nationwide in-hospital analysis of administrative data for Germany in 2014. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 4020–4029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tripathi, B.; Arora, S.; Kumar, V.; Abdelrahman, M.; Lahewala, S.; Dave, M.; Shah, M.; Tan, B.; Savani, S.; Badheka, A.; et al. Temporal trends of in-hospital complications associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States: An update from Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2011–2014). J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fink, T.; Metzner, A.; Willems, S.; Eckardt, L.; Ince, H.; Brachmann, J.; Spitzer, S.G.; Deneke, T.; Schmitt, C.; Hochadel, M.; et al. Procedural success, safety and patients satisfaction after second ablation of atrial fibrillation in the elderly: Results from the German Ablation Registry. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2019, 108, 1354–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Szegedi, N.; Széplaki, G.; Herczeg, S.; Tahin, T.; Salló, Z.; Nagy, V.K.; Osztheimer, I.; Özcan, E.E.; Merkely, B.; Gellér, L. Repeat procedure is a new independent predictor of complications of atrial fibrillation ablation. Europace 2019, 21, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ouyang, F.; Bänsch, D.; Ernst, S.; Schaumann, A.; Hachiya, H.; Chen, M.; Chun, J.; Falk, P.; Khanedani, A.; Antz, M.; et al. Complete isolation of left atrium surrounding the pulmonary veins: New insights from the double-Lasso technique in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2004, 110, 2090–2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yamane, T.; Date, T.; Kanzaki, Y.; Inada, K.; Matsuo, S.; Shibayama, K.; Miyanaga, S.; Miyazaki, H.; Sugimoto, K.; Mochizuki, S. Segmental pulmonary vein antrum isolation using the “large-size” lasso catheter in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ. J. 2007, 71, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kumagai, K. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation—State of the Art. Circ. J. 2011, 75, 2305–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Medi, C.; Sparks, P.B.; Morton, J.B.; Kistler, P.M.; Halloran, K.; Rosso, R.; Vohra, J.K.; Kumar, S.; Kalman, J.M. Pulmonary vein antral isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Results from long-term follow-up. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2011, 22, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Weerasooriya, R.; Khairy, P.; Litalien, J.; Macle, L.; Hocini, M.; Sacher, F.; Lellouche, N.; Knecht, S.; Wright, M.; Nault, I.; et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: Are results maintained at 5 years of follow-up? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011, 57, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sawhney, N.; Anousheh, R.; Chen, W.C.; Narayan, S.; Feld, G.K. Five-year outcomes after segmental pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2009, 104, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ouyang, F.; Tilz, R.; Chun, J.; Schmidt, B.; Wissner, E.; Zerm, T.; Neven, K.; Köktürk, B.; Konstantinidou, M.; Metzner, A.; et al. Long-term results of catheter ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Lessons from a 5-year follow-up. Circulation 2010, 122, 2368–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nogami, A.; Kurita, T.; Abe, H.; Ando, K.; Ishikawa, T.; Imai, K.; Usui, A.; Okishige, K.; Kusano, K.; Kumagai, K.; et al. JCS/JHRS 2019 Guideline on Non-Pharmacotherapy of Cardiac Arrhythmias. Circ. J. 2021, 85, 1104–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Teh, A.W.; Kistler, P.M.; Lee, G.; Medi, C.; Heck, P.M.; Spence, S.J.; Sparks, P.B.; Morton, J.B.; Kalman, J.M. Electroanatomic remodeling of the left atrium in paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation patients without structural heart disease. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2012, 23, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. D’Ascenzo, F.; Corleto, A.; Biondi-Zoccai, G.; Anselmino, M.; Ferraris, F.; di Biase, L.; Natale, A.; Hunter, R.J.; Schilling, R.J.; Miyazaki, S.; et al. Which are the most reliable predictors of recurrence of atrial fibrillation after transcatheter ablation?: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 167, 1984–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Berruezo, A.; Tamborero, D.; Mont, L.; Benito, B.; Tolosana, J.M.; Sitges, M.; Vidal, B.; Arriagada, G.; Méndez, F.; Matiello, M.; et al. Pre-procedural predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation. Eur. Heart J. 2007, 28, 836–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nedios, S.; Kosiuk, J.; Koutalas, E.; Kornej, J.; Sommer, P.; Arya, A.; Richter, S.; Rolf, S.; Husser, D.; Hindricks, G.; et al. Comparison of left atrial dimensions in CT and echocardiography as predictors of long-term success after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2015, 43, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Njoku, A.; Kannabhiran, M.; Arora, R.; Reddy, P.; Gopinathannair, R.; Lakkireddy, D.; Dominic, P. Left atrial volume predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence after radiofrequency ablation: A meta-analysis. Europace 2018, 20, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Costa, F.M.; Ferreira, A.M.; Oliveira, S.; Santos, P.G.; Durazzo, A.; Carmo, P.; Santos, K.R.; Cavaco, D.; Parreira, L.; Morgado, F.; et al. Left atrial volume is more important than the type of atrial fibrillation in predicting the long-term success of catheter ablation. Int. J. Cardiol. 2015, 184, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Patel, D.; Mohanty, P.; Di Biase, L.; Shaheen, M.; Lewis, W.R.; Quan, K.; Cummings, J.E.; Wang, P.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Venkatraman, P.; et al. Safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein antral isolation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: The impact of continuous positive airway pressure. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2010, 3, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bisbal, F.; Guiu, E.; Calvo, N.; Marin, D.; Berruezo, A.; Arbelo, E.; Ortiz-Pérez, J.; de Caralt, T.M.; Tolosana, J.M.; Borràs, R.; et al. Left atrial sphericity: A new method to assess atrial remodeling. Impact on the outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2013, 24, 752–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bieging, E.T.; Morris, A.; Wilson, B.D.; McGann, C.J.; Marrouche, N.F.; Cates, J. Left atrial shape predicts recurrence after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Thomas, L.; Marwick, T.H.; Popescu, B.A.; Donal, E.; Badano, L.P. Left Atrial Structure and Function, and Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 1961–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Melenovsky, V.; Hwang, S.J.; Redfield, M.M.; Zakeri, R.; Lin, G.; Borlaug, B.A. Left atrial remodeling and function in advanced heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction. Circ. Heart Fail. 2015, 8, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Winkle, R.A.; Jarman, J.W.; Mead, R.H.; Engel, G.; Kong, M.H.; Fleming, W.; Patrawala, R.A. Predicting atrial fibrillation ablation outcome: The CAAP-AF score. Heart Rhythm. 2016, 13, 2119–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kornej, J.; Hindricks, G.; Arya, A.; Sommer, P.; Husser, D.; Bollmann, A. The APPLE Score—A Novel Score for the Prediction of Rhythm Outcomes after Repeat Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kornej, J.; Hindricks, G.; Shoemaker, M.B.; Husser, D.; Arya, A.; Sommer, P.; Rolf, S.; Saavedra, P.; Kanagasundram, A.; Patrick Whalen, S.; et al. The APPLE score: A novel and simple score for the prediction of rhythm outcomes after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2015, 104, 871–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Canpolat, U.; Aytemir, K.; Yorgun, H.; Şahiner, L.; Kaya, E.B.; Oto, A. A proposal for a new scoring system in the prediction of catheter ablation outcomes: Promising results from the Turkish Cryoablation Registry. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 169, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wójcik, M.; Berkowitsch, A.; Greiss, H.; Zaltsberg, S.; Pajitnev, D.; Deubner, N.; Hamm, C.W.; Pitschner, H.F.; Kuniss, M.; Neumann, T. Repeated catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: How to predict outcome? Circ. J. 2013, 77, 2271–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kosiuk, J.; Dinov, B.; Kornej, J.; Acou, W.J.; Schönbauer, R.; Fiedler, L.; Buchta, P.; Myrda, K.; Gąsior, M.; Poloński, L.; et al. Prospective, multicenter validation of a clinical risk score for left atrial arrhythmogenic substrate based on voltage analysis: DR-FLASH score. Heart Rhythm. 2015, 12, 2207–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mesquita, J.; Ferreira, A.M.; Cavaco, D.; Moscoso Costa, F.; Carmo, P.; Marques, H.; Morgado, F.; Mendes, M.; Adragão, P. Development and validation of a risk score for predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence after a first catheter ablation procedure—ATLAS score. Europace 2018, 20, f428–f435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kornej, J.; Schumacher, K.; Dinov, B.; Kosich, F.; Sommer, P.; Arya, A.; Husser, D.; Bollmann, A.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Hindricks, G. Prediction of electro-anatomical substrate and arrhythmia recurrences using APPLE, DR-FLASH and MB-LATER scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mujović, N.; Marinković, M.; Marković, N.; Shantsila, A.; Lip, G.Y.; Potpara, T.S. Prediction of very late arrhythmia recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: The MB-LATER clinical score. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sohns, C.; Fox, H.; Marrouche, N.F.; Crijns, H.; Costard-Jaeckle, A.; Bergau, L.; Hindricks, G.; Dagres, N.; Sossalla, S.; Schramm, R.; et al. Catheter Ablation in End-Stage Heart Failure with Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kotecha, D.; Lam, C.S.; Van Veldhuisen, D.J.; Van Gelder, I.C.; Voors, A.A.; Rienstra, M. Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Atrial Fibrillation: Vicious Twins. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 68, 2217–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Nagai, T.; Yoshikawa, T.; Saito, Y.; Takeishi, Y.; Yamamoto, K.; Ogawa, H.; Anzai, T. Clinical Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of Japanese Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction—A Report From the Japanese Heart Failure Syndrome with Preserved Ejection Fraction (JASPER) Registry. Circ. J. 2018, 82, 1534–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kosmala, W. Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Atrial Fibrillation: How to Fight Allied Enemies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 1065–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Temma, T.; Nagai, T.; Watanabe, M.; Kamada, R.; Takahashi, Y.; Hagiwara, H.; Koya, T.; Nakao, M.; Omote, K.; Kamiya, K.; et al. Differential Prognostic Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction According to Coronary Artery Disease Status—Report From the Japanese Nationwide Multicenter Registry. Circ. J. 2020, 84, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Olsson, L.G.; Swedberg, K.; Ducharme, A.; Granger, C.B.; Michelson, E.L.; McMurray, J.J.; Puu, M.; Yusuf, S.; Pfeffer, M.A. Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Results from the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, 1997–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Linssen, G.C.; Rienstra, M.; Jaarsma, T.; Voors, A.A.; van Gelder, I.C.; Hillege, H.L.; van Veldhuisen, D.J. Clinical and prognostic effects of atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2011, 13, 1111–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cikes, M.; Claggett, B.; Shah, A.M.; Desai, A.S.; Lewis, E.F.; Shah, S.J.; Anand, I.S.; O’Meara, E.; Rouleau, J.L.; Sweitzer, N.K.; et al. Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: The TOPCAT Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2018, 6, 689–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cikes, M.; Planinc, I.; Claggett, B.; Cunningham, J.; Milicic, D.; Sweitzer, N.; Senni, M.; Gori, M.; Linssen, G.; Shah, S.J.; et al. Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2022, 10, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Butt, J.H.; Kondo, T.; Jhund, P.S.; Comin-Colet, J.; de Boer, R.A.; Desai, A.S.; Hernandez, A.F.; Inzucchi, S.E.; Janssens, S.P.; Kosiborod, M.N.; et al. Atrial Fibrillation and Dapagliflozin Efficacy in Patients with Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 1705–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fukui, A.; Tanino, T.; Yamaguchi, T.; Hirota, K.; Saito, S.; Okada, N.; Akioka, H.; Shinohara, T.; Yufu, K.; Takahashi, N. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation reduces heart failure rehospitalization in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Rattka, M.; Kühberger, A.; Pott, A.; Stephan, T.; Weinmann, K.; Baumhardt, M.; Aktolga, D.; Teumer, Y.; Bothner, C.; Scharnbeck, D.; et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in HFpEF patients-A propensity-score-matched analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2021, 32, 2357–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Arora, S.; Jaswaney, R.; Jani, C.; Zuzek, Z.; Thakkar, S.; Patel, H.P.; Patel, M.; Patel, N.; Tripathi, B.; Lahewala, S.; et al. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Concurrent Heart Failure. Am. J. Cardiol. 2020, 137, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Packer, D.L.; Mark, D.B.; Robb, R.A.; Monahan, K.H.; Bahnson, T.D.; Poole, J.E.; Noseworthy, P.A.; Rosenberg, Y.D.; Jeffries, N.; Mitchell, L.B.; et al. Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 1261–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Packer, D.L.; Piccini, J.P.; Monahan, K.H.; Al-Khalidi, H.R.; Silverstein, A.P.; Noseworthy, P.A.; Poole, J.E.; Bahnson, T.D.; Lee, K.L.; Mark, D.B. Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial. Circulation 2021, 143, 1377–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jpm 13 01394 g001
Figure 1. Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. The studies in which LVEF was measured by radionuclide ventriculography are indicated by daggers. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-blue line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-blue line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Figure 1. Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. The studies in which LVEF was measured by radionuclide ventriculography are indicated by daggers. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-blue line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-blue line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Jpm 13 01394 g001
Jpm 13 01394 g002
Figure 2. Changes in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) scores from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-green line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-green line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire [20,21,22,23,24,27,28].
Figure 2. Changes in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) scores from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-green line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-green line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire [20,21,22,23,24,27,28].
Jpm 13 01394 g002
Jpm 13 01394 g003
Figure 3. Change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-orange line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-orange line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. 6MWD, six-minute walk distance [20,21,22,23,24,27,28].
Figure 3. Change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to post-ablation follow-up in published RCTs. Asterisks indicate trials that demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control group. The dark-orange line represents the baseline LVEF; the light-orange line represents the LVEF at post-ablation follow-up. 6MWD, six-minute walk distance [20,21,22,23,24,27,28].
Jpm 13 01394 g003
Jpm 13 01394 g004
Figure 4. Combined Kaplan–Meier plots of the primary outcome in the CASTLE-AF and RAFT-AF trials.
Figure 4. Combined Kaplan–Meier plots of the primary outcome in the CASTLE-AF and RAFT-AF trials.
Jpm 13 01394 g004
Table 1. Randomized controlled trials of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Table 1. Randomized controlled trials of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Trials (RCTs)Sample SizePatient PopulationComparison GroupPrimary OutcomeFollow-Up (Years)LVEF (Mean)Findings
(publication year) Ref(number of PAF)
PABA-CHF
(2008) [20]		81 (42)Symptomatic AF, NYHA II–III,AV node ablation + BiV pacingComposite of LVEF (TTE), 0.528Beneficial effect of CA on
and LVEF ≤ 40% (TTE) 6MWD, and MLWHQ score LVEF, 6MWD, QOL
MacDonald et al.
(2011) [21]		41 (0)Persistent AF, NYHA II–IV,Pharmacological rate controlChange in LVEF (CMR)0.518No beneficial effect of CA on
and LVEF < 35% (RNVG) (RNVG)LVEF (CMR), 6MWD, QOL
AF recurrence 50% in CA arm
ARC-HF
(2013) [22]		52 (0)Persistent AF, NYHA II–IV,Pharmacological rate controlChange in peak VO2124Beneficial effect of CA on
and LVEF ≤ 35% (RNVG) peak VO2, QOL
CAMTAF
(2014) [23]		50 (0)Persistent AF, NYHA II–IV,Pharmacological rate controlChange in LVEF (TTE)0.532Beneficial effect of CA on
and LVEF < 50% (TTE) LVEF, peak VO2, QOL
AATAC
(2016) [24]		203 (0)Persistent AF, NYHA II–IV,AmiodaroneRecurrence of AF230Beneficial effect of CA on
LVEF < 40% (TTE), and ICD/CRTD LVEF, 6MWD, QOL, and
prognosis (death + HF)
CAMERA-MRI
(2017) [25]		68 (0)Persistent AF, idiopathic cardiomyopathyPharmacological rate controlChange in LVEF (CMR)0.533Beneficial effect of CA on
NYHA II–IV, and LVEF ≤ 45% (CMR) LVEF (especially in patients
with non-LGE in CMR)
CASTLE-AF
(2018) [26]		363 (118)Symptomatic AF, NYHA II–IV,Pharmacological treatmentComposite of death and532Beneficial effect of CA on
LVEF < 35% (TTE), and ICD/CRTD(rate/rhythm control)HF hospitalization(median 3.2) prognosis (death + HF),
and LVEF
AMICA
(2019) [27]		140 (0)Persistent AF, NYHA II–III,Pharmacological treatmentChange in LVEF (TTE)126No beneficial effect of CA on
LVEF < 35% (TTE), and ICD/CRTD(rate/rhythm control) LVEF, 6MWD, QOL
RAFT-AF
(2022) [28]		411 (30)Symptomatic AF, NYHA II–III,Pharmacological rate controlComposite of death and241Nonsignificant trend for improved
HF, elevated NT-proBNP/AV node ablation + BiV pacingHF events prognosis (death + HF) with CA
Beneficial effect on LVEF,
6MWD, QOL
Abbreviations: AF = atrial fibrillation; AV = atrioventricular; BiV = biventricular; CA = catheter ablation; CMR = cardiovascular magnetic resonance; CRTD = cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator; HF = heart failure; ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide; NYHA = New York Heart Association; PAF = paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; QOL = quality of life; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RNVG = radionuclide ventriculography; TTE = transthoracic echocardiography; VO2 = oxygen consumption; 6MWD = six-minute walk distance.
Table 2. Observational studies comparing catheter ablation and pharmacological therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Table 2. Observational studies comparing catheter ablation and pharmacological therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
StudiesStudy DesignSample SizePrimary OutcomeFollow-Up (Years)Findings
(publication year) Ref
Fukui et al.Single-center retrospective85HF readmission2.2Significant association between CA
(2020) [81]cohort study and a lower risk of HF readmission
Arora et al.Retrospective cohort study56,395Death + HF readmission1No association between CA and
(2020) [83]using a national database better prognosis
Rattka et al.Single-center retrospective127Death + HF readmission1.5Significant association between CA
(2021) [82]cohort study and a lower risk of the primary outcome
Abbreviations: CA = catheter ablation; HF = heart failure.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suzuki, S.; Kitai, T.; Skoularigis, J.; Spiliopoulos, K.; Xanthopoulos, A. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091394

AMA Style

Suzuki S, Kitai T, Skoularigis J, Spiliopoulos K, Xanthopoulos A. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(9):1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suzuki, Sho, Takeshi Kitai, John Skoularigis, Kyriakos Spiliopoulos, and Andrew Xanthopoulos. 2023. "Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities" Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 9: 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop