AF ablation in patients with systolic LV dysfunction results in significant improvement of LV function , but the extent of this improvement is heterogeneous .
Patients with coronary artery disease seem to benefit less than patients with other underlying diseases .
These results may be explained by patient selection
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and heart failure are often coexisting major public health burdens .
Although several studies have reported partial restoration of systolic left ventricular ( LV ) function after catheter ablation for AF , the method is not widely applied in patients with LV dysfunction .
We review ed the results of AF ablation in patients with systolic LV dysfunction .
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
AF ablation in patients with systolic LV dysfunction results in significant improvement of LV function , but the extent of this improvement is heterogeneous .
Patients with coronary artery disease seem to benefit less than patients with other underlying diseases .
These results may be explained by patient selection
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and heart failure are often coexisting major public health burdens .
Although several studies have reported partial restoration of systolic left ventricular ( LV ) function after catheter ablation for AF , the method is not widely applied in patients with LV dysfunction .
We review ed the results of AF ablation in patients with systolic LV dysfunction .