RECENT FINDINGS Several r and omized control trials and systematic review s demonstrate the safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction .
In multiple trials , these patients have shown clinical benefit from atrial fibrillation ablation including improved left ventricular systolic function , quality of life , and clinical heart failure symptoms .
SUMMARY Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients remains well tolerated with an overall efficacy comparable to atrial fibrillation ablation in patients without heart failure .
There is consistent evidence for the clinical benefit of atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and limited evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction .
Currently , there is insufficient data regarding the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure devices in heart failure patients
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure experience an increased morbidity and mortality from the hemodynamic consequences of atrial fibrillation and an increased stroke risk .
Consequently , there has been increased attention to procedural alternatives to pharmacologic rhythm control and anticoagulation for stroke prevention .
This review aims to evaluate the evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure in heart failure patients .
Left ventricular systolic dysfunction by itself does not influence outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation
Aims The objective of the study was to analyse the influence of left ventricular ( LV ) ejection fraction ( EF ) on the outcomes of  atrial fibrillation ( AF ) ablation after a first procedure . Pre-procedural predictors of recurrences after AF ablation can be useful for patient information and selection of c and i date s. The independent influence of LV systolic dysfunction on recurrence rate has not been studied . Methods and results A case – control study ( 1:1 ) was conducted with a total of 72 patients : 36 cases ( depressed LVEF ) and 36 controls ( normal LVEF ) . Patients were matched by left atrial diameter ( LAD ) , the presence of arterial hypertension , and other variables that might influence the results ( age , gender and paroxysmal vs. persistent AF ) . There were no statistical differences in the variables used to perform the matching . Patients with depressed LVEF had higher LV end diastolic diameter ( 55.6 ± 6.2 vs. 52.4 ± 5.5 , P = 0.03 ) , higher LV end systolic diameter ( 40.3 ± 6.9 vs. 32.6 ± 4.3 , P < 0.001 ) , lower LVEF ( 41.4 ± 8.0 vs. 63.1 ± 5.5 , P < 0.001 ) and were more likely to have structural heart disease . After a mean follow-up of 16 ± 13 months , survival analysis for AF recurrences showed no differences between patients with depressed vs. normal LVEF ( 50.0 vs. 55.6 % , log rank = 0.82 ) . Cox regression analysis revealed LAD to be the only variable correlated to recurrence [ OR 1.11 ( 1.01–1.22 ) , P = 0.03 ] . Analysis at 6 months showed a significant increase in LVEF ( 43.23 ± 7.61 to 51.12 ± 13.53 % , P = 0.01 ) for the case group . Conclusion LV systolic dysfunction by itself is not a predictor of outcome after AF ablation . LAD independently correlates with outcome in patients with low or normal LVEF
RECENT FINDINGS Several r and omized control trials and systematic review s demonstrate the safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction .
In multiple trials , these patients have shown clinical benefit from atrial fibrillation ablation including improved left ventricular systolic function , quality of life , and clinical heart failure symptoms .
SUMMARY Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients remains well tolerated with an overall efficacy comparable to atrial fibrillation ablation in patients without heart failure .
There is consistent evidence for the clinical benefit of atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and limited evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction .
Currently , there is insufficient data regarding the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure devices in heart failure patients
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure experience an increased morbidity and mortality from the hemodynamic consequences of atrial fibrillation and an increased stroke risk .
Consequently , there has been increased attention to procedural alternatives to pharmacologic rhythm control and anticoagulation for stroke prevention .
This review aims to evaluate the evidence for atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure in heart failure patients .