Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the shared pathology of atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment challenges incurred by the co-occurrence of these increasingly prevalent diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple risk factors and mechanisms have been proposed as potentially linking atrial fibrillation and HFpEF, with systemic inflammation more recently being invoked. Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, and catheter ablation have emerged as alternative treatment options. Other novel pharmacological agents, such as neprilysin inhibitors, need to be studied further in this patient population. SUMMARY: Atrial fibrillation and HFpEF commonly co-occur because of their shared risk factors and pathophysiology and incur increased morbidity and mortality relative to either condition alone. Although the presence of both diseases can often make each diagnosis difficult, it is important to do so early in the disease course as there are now a variety of treatment options aimed at improving symptoms and quality of life, slowing disease progression, and improving prognosis. However, more research needs to be performed on the role of catheter ablation in this population. Novel pharmacologic and procedural treatment options appear promising and may further improve the treatment options available to this growing population.

Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by automated analysis of handheld echocardiograms: A comparison of experienced and novice examiners.

BACKGROUND: Handheld ultrasound devices have been developed that facilitate imaging in new clinical settings. However, quantitative assessment has been difficult. Software algorithms have recently been developed with the aim of providing rapid measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with minimal operator input. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a cohort of 70 patients scheduled to undergo echocardiography at the University of California, San Diego. Each patient underwent a standard echocardiography examination by an experienced sonographer as well as a handheld ultrasound with automated software by both the sonographer and an inexperienced resident. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between the LVEFs obtained from the standard transthoracic echocardiogram and handheld device in the hands of a novice (r = 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.75) and experienced sonographer (r = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.80). The sensitivity and specificity to detect a reduced LVEF (<50%) were 69% and 96% for the novice and 64% and 98% for the experienced sonographer. The sensitivity and specificity to detect a severely reduced LVEF (<35%) were 67% and 97% for the novice and 56% and 93% for the experienced sonographer, but when limited to recordings of at least adequate quality, improved to 100% and 100% for the novice and 100% and 98% for the experienced sonographer, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that the handheld ultrasound device paired with novel software can provide a clinically useful estimate of LVEF when the images are of adequate quality and yield results by novice examiners that are similar to experienced sonographers.

Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the very elderly (≥80 years old): Insights from the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation improves outcomes in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. However, its safety and efficacy in the very elderly (≥80 years old) is not well described. HYPOTHESIS: Ablation of AF in the very elderly is safe and effective. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent catheter ablation enrolled in the University of California, San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). RESULTS: Of 847 patients, 42 (5.0%) were 80 years of age or greater with a median age of 81.5 (80-82.3) and 805 (95.0%) were less than 80 years of age with a median age of 64.4 (57.6-70.2). Among those who were ≥80 years old, 29 were undergoing de novo ablation (69.0%), whereas in the younger cohort, 518 (64.5%) were undergoing de novo ablation (p = .548). There were no statistically significant differences in fluoroscopy (p = .406) or total procedure times (p = .076), AAD use (p = .611), or procedural complications (p = .500) between groups. After multivariable adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of any atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-1.23; p = .252), all-cause hospitalizations (AHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.60; p = .626), or all-cause mortality (AHR: 4.48; 95% CI: 0.59-34.07; p = .147) between the very elderly and the younger cohort. CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, catheter ablation of AF appears similarly effective and safe in patients 80 years or older when compared to a younger cohort.

Association of isoproterenol infusion during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with outcomes: insights from the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: High-dose isoproterenol infusion is a useful provocative maneuver to elicit triggers of atrial fibrillation (AF) during ablation. We evaluated whether the use of isoproterenol infusion to elicit triggers of AF after ablation is associated with differential outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent de novo radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF enrolled in the University of California, San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). RESULTS: Of 314 patients undergoing AF ablation, 235 (74.8%) received isoproterenol while 79 (25.2%) did not. Among those who received isoproterenol, 11 (4.7%) had additional triggers identified. There were no statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.432), antiarrhythmic drug use (p = 0.289), procedural complications (p = 0.279), recurrences of atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.46); p = 0.714], all-cause hospitalizations [AHR 1.00 (95% CI 0.60-1.67); p = 0.986], or all-cause mortality [AHR 0.14 (95% CI 0.01-3.52); p = 0.229] between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this registry analysis, use of isoproterenol is safe but was not associated with a reduction in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias.

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions.

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel energy source for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using ultrarapid electrical pulses to induce cell death via electroporation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and acute efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA vs thermal energy sources. Methods: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA and compared them to landmark clinical trials for ablation of AF with thermal energy sources. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to establish variance of raw proportions followed by the inverse with the random-effects model to combine the transformed proportions and generate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 5203 patients who underwent AF ablation. Among these patients, 54.6% (n = 2842) underwent PFA and 45.4% (n = 2361) underwent thermal ablation. There were significantly fewer periprocedural complications in the PFA group (2.05%; 95% CI 0.94-3.46) compared to the thermal ablation group (7.75%; 95% CI 5.40-10.47) (P = .001). When comparing AF recurrence up to 1 year, there was a statistically insignificant trend toward a lower prevalence of recurrence in the PFA group (14.24%; 95% CI 6.97-23.35) compared to the thermal ablation group (25.98%; 95% CI 15.75-37.68) (P = .132). Conclusion: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with lower rates of periprocedural complications and similar rates of acute procedural success and recurrent AF with up to 1 year of follow-up compared to ablation with thermal energy sources.

Ablation of mitral annular flutter ablation utilizing a left atrial anterior line versus a lateral mitral isthmus line: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Mitral annular flutter (MAF) is a common arrhythmia after atrial fibrillation ablation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation utilizing either a left atrial anterior wall (LAAW) line or a lateral mitral isthmus (LMI) line. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for all studies that compared LAAW versus LMI lines. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) 95% confidence intervals were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 594 patients were included, one of which was a randomized control trial. In the LMI ablation group, 40% of patients required CS ablation. There were no significant differences in bidirectional block (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.94-1.69) or ablation time (MD -1.5; 95% CI, -6.11-3.11), but LAAW ablation was associated with longer ablation line length (MD 11.42; 95% CI, 10.69-12.14) and longer LAA activation delay (MD 67.68; 95% CI, 33.47-101.89.14) when compared to LMI. There was no significant difference in pericardial effusions (RR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.39-20.75) between groups and more patients were maintained sinus rhythm (RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37, p = 0.02) who underwent LAAW compared to LMI. CONCLUSION: Ablation of mitral annular flutter with a LAAW line compared to a LMI line showed no difference in rates of acute bidirectional block, ablation time, or pericardial effusion. However, LAAW ablation required a longer ablation line length, resulted in greater LAA activation delayed and was associated with more sinus rhythm maintenance, with the added advantage of avoiding ablation in the CS.

Early Versus Delayed Lead Extraction in Patients With Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of early versus delayed lead extraction in patients with an infected cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). BACKGROUND: CIED infections are associated with poor outcomes. Prior studies have demonstrated improved survival with CIED extraction compared with antibiotic therapy alone. The impact of timing of CIED extraction has not been well characterized. METHODS: All infected CIED extraction cases at our medical center from 2006 to 2019 were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of bacteremia or isolated pocket infection. We assessed the in-hospital morbidity and 1-year mortality for early versus delayed lead extraction, using hospitalization day 7 as cutoff. RESULTS: Of 233 patients who underwent CIED extraction, 127 patients had bacteremia and 106 patients had pocket infection. Delayed extraction (15.2 days) in bacteremic patients was associated with septic shock (odds ratio [OR]: 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 23.67; p = 0.026), acute kidney injury (OR: 5.61; 95% CI: 2.15 to 14.63; p < 0.001), respiratory failure (OR: 5.52; 95% CI: 1.25 to 24.41; p = 0.024), and decompensated heart failure (OR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.10 to 10.05; p = 0.033). Locally infected patients with delayed extraction (10.7 days) were associated with acute kidney injury (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 10.77; p = 0.033) and respiratory failure (OR: 10.29; 95% CI: 1.26 to 83.93; p = 0.030). Delayed CIED extraction in both groups was associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed infected CIED extraction is associated with worse outcomes. This underscores the importance of early detection and a strategy for prompt management including lead extraction.

Meta-analysis of the Usefulness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. We performed a literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR; where a RR <1.0 favors the HFpEF group) and mean difference (MD; where MD <0 favors the HFpEF group) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Six studies with a total of 1,505 patients were included, of which 764 (51%) had HFpEF and 741 (49%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF 1 year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared with those with HFrEF (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.76, 1.35). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the HFpEF group (MD -5.42; 95% CI -8.51, -2.34), but there was no significant difference in procedure time (MD 1.74; 95% CI -11.89, 15.37) or periprocedural adverse events between groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54,1.32). There was no significant difference in hospitalizations between groups (MD 1.18; 95% CI 0.90, 1.55), but HFpEF patients experienced significantly less mortality (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.18, 0.94). In conclusion, based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as safe and efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF.

Comparison of Outcomes After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Catheter ablation improves outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation of AF in HF patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent de novo radiofrequency catheter ablation enrolled in the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). Of 547 total patients, 51 (9.3%) had HFpEF, 40 (7.3%) had HFrEF, and 456 (83.4%) were without HF. There was no difference in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] 1.92 [95% CI 0.97 to 3.83] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 0.90 [95% CI 0.59 to 1.39] for HFpEF vs no HF) or off AAD (AHR 1.96 [95% CI 0.99 to 3.90] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 1.14 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.77] for HFpEF vs no HF). There was also no difference in rates of all-cause hospitalizations (AHR 1.80 [95% CI 0.97 to 3.33] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 2.05 [95% CI 1.30 to 3.23] for HFpEF vs no HF) or rates of all-cause mortality (AHR 0.53 [95% CI 0.05 to 6.11] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 2.46 [95% CI 0.34 to 17.92] for HFpEF vs no HF). There were no significant differences in AAD use (p = 0.176) or procedural complications between groups (p = 0.980). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in arrhythmia-free survival between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF that underwent catheter ablation of AF.

Role of adjunctive posterior wall isolation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The posterior wall of the left atrium may promote atrial fibrillation (AF) due to its propensity for fibrosis, in addition to a high prevalence of non-pulmonary vein triggers. Multiple smaller studies have assessed the incremental value of posterior wall isolation (PWI) in addition to standard atrial fibrillation. Similarly, this method has shown promise as an ablation strategy for patients with persistent AF, when PVI alone has shown only modest efficacy. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF ablation plus PWI versus control. We separately assessed the recurrence rates of all atrial arrhythmias (AF/AFL/AT), as well as separate recurrence rates of AF and atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter (AT/AFL) after ablation. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used due to heterogeneity (I2) > 25%. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 1151 patients were included. Patients who underwent concomitant PWI experienced less recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias post ablation (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.96, p = 0.02) and less recurrence of AF (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.77, p < 0.01). There was no difference in onset of AT/AFL (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62-1.48, p = 0.85) after ablation. These results were replicated in subgroup analysis of patients with persistent AF. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, concomitant PWI is associated with less recurrence of AF and all atrial arrhythmias after ablation, without an increase in the risk for post-ablation AFL/AT.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) both have become major cardiovascular epidemics, adversely affecting quality of life, decreasing longevity, and imparting a large economic burden on the healthcare system. Both share similar risk factors and frequently coexist, leading to increased morbidity and mortality relative to patients with either condition alone. Although evidence-based treatment guidelines for both diseases exist, consensus treatment strategies are less clear when AF and HF co-occur. Given the risks of antiarrhythmic drugs and their incomplete success in maintaining sinus rhythm, catheter ablation has become an increasingly popular alternative to pharmacologic rhythm control in symptomatic patients with AF with normal cardiac function. Although multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacy of catheter ablation in AF, studies examining the use of catheter ablation specifically in patients with HF have recently begun to emerge and provide some guidance in this group of patients. In this review, we examine the effects of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF on maintenance of sinus rhythm, left ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity, quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality rates. Data regarding both HF with reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction are discussed.

Lifestyle Interventions and Carotid Plaque Burden: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lifestyle Intervention Programs in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective effects of intensive lifestyle regimens in primary prevention have been elucidated; however, there is a paucity of data comparing the effects of different lifestyle regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent, specifically vis-à-vis carotid plaque regression. METHODS: We performed a randomized, single-center, single-blind study in 120 patients with established CAD. Patients were randomly assigned to either 9 months of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), an outpatient lifestyle enrichment program that focuses on improving dietary choices, enhancing daily exercise, increasing support systems, and decreasing stress; or to 9 months of an ad hoc, nonsequential combination of various healthy living classes offered separately through a health maintenance organization and referred to as the Healthy Heart program. Baseline and 9-month change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) were measured. RESULTS: Among 120 participants, data were analyzed for 79, of which 68 (86%) completed the study. Both average CIMT and average maximum CIMT increased over 9 months, but the changes between groups were insignificant. There were marked differences in the mean body mass index favoring the CHIP group (-1.9 [standard deviation = 1.9]; p < 0.001) and statistically significant within-group improvements in blood pressure, triglyceride level, 6-minute walk test result, self-assessment well-being score, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score that were not observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Neither the CHIP nor Healthy Heart was effective in inducing plaque regression in patients with established CAD after a 9-month period. However, both were effective in improving several CAD risk factors, which shows that the nonsequential offering of healthy lifestyle programs can lead to similar outcomes as a formal, sequential, established program (CHIP) in many aspects. These results have important implications as to how lifestyle changes will be implemented as tertiary prevention measures in the future.

Meta-analysis of Effect of Modest (≥10%) Weight Loss in Management of Overweight and Obese Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Obesity and atrial fibrillation (AF) are growing epidemics with significant overlap in co-morbidities. Multiple smaller studies have evaluated the effects of weight loss and risk factor modification on recurrence of AF, reduction in AF burden and improvement in AF symptom severity. The objective of this study was to determine if a modest weight loss of ≥10% of initial body weight is enough to improve outcomes in overweight or obese patients with established AF. We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared weight loss of ≥10% versus weight loss of less than 10% or weight gain and assessed outcomes including recurrence of AF as determined through a Holter monitor, AF burden and improvement in AF symptom severity. Risk ratio 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where MD >0 favors the group with ≥10% weight loss. Five studies with a total of 548 patients were included. Patients who lost ≥10% of their initial body weight experienced less recurrence of AF (risk ratio 0.29; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.44) and a larger reduction in reported event frequency (MD 1.74; 95% CI 0.70 to 2.79), episode duration (MD 2.14; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.23), global episode severity (MD 1.89; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.45), and symptom severity (MD 5.36; 95% CI 3.75 to 6.97). In conclusion, weight loss is associated with less risk of recurrent AF, reduction in AF burden, and improvement in AF symptom severity.