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 .
A randomized trial to assess catheter ablation versus rate control in the management of persistent atrial fibrillation in heart failure.
OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare catheter ablation with rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation ( AF ) in heart failure ( HF ) . BACKGROUND The optimal therapy for AF in HF is unclear . Drug-based rhythm control has not proved clinical ly beneficial . Catheter ablation improves cardiac function in patients with HF , but impact on physiological performance has not been formally evaluated in a r and omized trial . METHODS In a r and omized , open-label , blinded-endpoint clinical trial , adults with symptomatic HF , radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction ( EF ) ≤35 % , and persistent AF were assigned to undergo catheter ablation or rate control . Primary outcome was 12-month change in peak oxygen consumption . Secondary endpoints were quality of life , B-type natriuretic peptide , 6-min walk distance , and EF . Results were analyzed by intention-to-treat . RESULTS Fifty-two patients ( age 63 ± 9 years , EF 24 ± 8 % ) were r and omized , 26 each to ablation and rate control . At 12 months , 88 % of ablation patients maintained sinus rhythm ( single-procedure success 68 % ) . Under rate control , rate criteria were achieved in 96 % . The primary endpoint , peak oxygen consumption , significantly increased in the ablation arm compared with rate control ( difference + 3.07 ml/kg/min , 95 % confidence interval : 0.56 to 5.59 , p = 0.018 ) . The change was not evident at 3 months ( + 0.79 ml/kg/min , 95 % confidence interval : -1.01 to 2.60 , p = 0.38 ) . Ablation improved Minnesota score ( p = 0.019 ) and B-type natriuretic peptide ( p = 0.045 ) and showed nonsignificant trends toward improved 6-min walk distance ( p = 0.095 ) and EF ( p = 0.055 ) . CONCLUSIONS This first r and omized trial of ablation versus rate control to focus on objective exercise performance in AF and HF shows significant benefit from ablation , a strategy that also improves symptoms and neurohormonal status . The effects develop over 12 months , consistent with progressive amelioration of the HF syndrome . ( A R and omised Trial to Assess Catheter Ablation Versus Rate Control in the Management of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure ; NCT00878384 )
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 .