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 .
Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.
BACKGROUND Pulmonary-vein isolation is increasingly being used to treat atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure . METHODS In this prospect i ve , multicenter clinical trial , we r and omly assigned patients with symptomatic , drug-resistant atrial fibrillation , an ejection fraction of 40 % or less , and New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure to undergo either pulmonary-vein isolation or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing .  All patients completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure question naire ( scores range from 0 to 105 , with a higher score indicating a worse quality of life ) and underwent echocardiography and a 6-minute walk test ( the composite primary end point ) . Over a 6-month period , patients were monitored for both symptomatic and asymptomatic episodes of atrial fibrillation . RESULTS In all , 41 patients underwent pulmonary-vein isolation  , and 40 underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing ; none were lost to follow-up at 6 months . The composite primary end point favored the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation , with an improved question naire score at 6 months ( 60 , vs. 82 in the group that underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing ; P<0.001 ) , a longer 6-minute-walk distance ( 340 m vs. 297 m , P<0.001 ) , and a higher ejection fraction ( 35 % vs. 28 % , P<0.001 ) . In the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation , 88 % of patients receiving antiarrhythmic drugs and 71 % of those not receiving such drugs were free of atrial fibrillation at 6 months . In the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation , pulmonary-vein stenosis developed in two patients , pericardial effusion in one , and pulmonary edema in another ; in the group that underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing , lead dislodgment was found in one patient and pneumothorax in another . CONCLUSIONS Pulmonary-vein isolation was superior to atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who had drug-refractory atrial fibrillation . ( Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00599976 .
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 .