A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing radiofrequency ablation versus pharmacological therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are both associated with worse prognosis and often coexist in the same patients. Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing major clinical endpoints in patients with AF and HF is still unsettled. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing CA with medical therapy (MT) in this population. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between patients with AF and HF treated with CA or MT. The studied outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and 6-min walking test (6MWT) improvement. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies counting 41,377 patients (3611 treated with CA and 37,766 with MT) were included in the analysis. The random-effect model revealed a clear trend in favor of CA in reducing unexpected HF hospitalization (RR 0.72; 95%CI 0.51-1.00; P = 0.05), all-cause death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.59-1.01; P = 0.06), all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.68-1.03; P = 0.09), and the composite of HF hospitalization and death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.58-1.02; P = 0.07), compared with MT. Patients treated with CA experienced a better improvement in LVEF (mean difference 6.17; 95%CI 2.98-9.37; P = 0.0002) and 6MWT (mean difference 13.70; 95%CI 3.95-23.45; P = 0.006). When the analysis was limited to randomized controlled trial, CA was found to significantly reduce all-cause death (RR 0.68; 95%CI 0.54-0.86; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: As compared to MT, CA is associated with a better improvement in functional capacity and LVEF, and with a reduction in major clinical endpoints in patients with HF and AF.

Right heart failure in left heart disease: imaging, functional, and biochemical aspects of right ventricular dysfunction.

For decades, cardiologists have largely underestimated the role of the right heart in heart failure due to left heart disease. Nowadays, the importance of evaluating right ventricular (RV) structure and function in left heart failure is well documented and this concept has been emphasized in the most recent heart failure guidelines. However, several relevant questions remain unanswered such as the following: (a) which imaging technique (standard or 3D echocardiography or strain imaging or cardiac magnetic resonance) and, more, which parameters should be used to grade the severity of RV dysfunction? (b) do less widespread and less applied diagnostic tools such as cardiopulmonary stress testing and bioelectrical impedance analysis play a role in this field? (c) are there specific biochemical aspects of RV failure? (d) why notion of pathophysiology of heart and lung interaction are so well appreciated at an academic level but are not applied in the clinical setting? The present review has been prepared by the Heart Failure (HF) working group of the Italian Society of Cardiology and its main objective is to improve our understanding on RV dysfunction in heart failure.