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.

Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) induces cell death through electroporation using ultrarapid electrical pulses. We sought to compare the procedural efficiency characteristics, safety, and efficacy of ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using PFA compared with thermal energy ablation. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared ablation of AF with PFA versus thermal energy sources. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where RR < 1 and MD < 0 favor the PFA group. RESULTS: We included 6 comparative studies for a total of 1012 patients who underwent ablation of AF: 43.6% with PFA (n = 441) and 56.4% (n = 571) with thermal energy sources. There were significantly shorter procedures times with PFA despite a protocolized 20-min dwell time (MD - 21.95, 95% CI - 33.77, - 10.14, p = 0.0003), but with significantly longer fluroscopy time (MD 5.71, 95% CI 1.13, 10.30, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.59-2.44) or recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31, 1.34) between the PFA and thermal ablation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with shorter procedural times and longer fluoroscopy times, but no difference in periprocedural complications or rates of recurrent AF when compared to ablation with thermal energy sources. However, larger randomized control trials are needed.

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.

Seronegative immune-mediated necrotising myopathy complicated by fulminant myocarditis resulting in cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.

A woman in her late 30s recently diagnosed with viral myopericarditis presented with 1 month of worsening fatigue, diffuse myalgias and chest pain radiating to her back. While undergoing work-up for chest wall myositis, she rapidly decompensated, developing heart failure and acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Her clinical course was complicated by cardiac arrest and severe cardiogenic shock requiring intra-aortic balloon pump support.

Association between early recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmias and long-term outcomes in patients after repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.

PURPOSE: Early recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ER) is predictive of late recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia (LR) after first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but the association in patients undergoing repeat AF ablation is unknown. We aim to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of ER after repeat ablation. METHODS: A total of 259 consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, 75.3% male) undergoing repeat AF ablation with complete follow-up data were included at a single institution from 2010 to 2015. ER and LR were defined as atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia) > 30 s within the 3-month blanking period (BP) and after the 3-month BP, respectively. RESULTS: ER occurred in 79/259 (30.5%), and LR occurred in 138/259 (53%) at a median follow-up of 1221 (IQR: 523-1712) days. Four-year freedom from LR was 22% and 56% in patients with and without ER, respectively (p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, ER was strongly associated with LR, cardioversion post BP, and repeat ablation, but not associated with hospitalization. Compared to those with no ER, there was a higher risk of LR when ER occurred within the first month of the BP [month 1: hazard ratio (HR) 2.32, confidence interval (CI) 1.57-3.74, p < 0.001; month 2: HR 2.01, CI 1.13-3.83, p = 0.02; month 3: HR 1.46, CI 0.5-3.36, p = 0.37], however the prediction of LR based on timing within the BP was poor (area under curve 0.64). CONCLUSION: Following repeat AF ablation, ER is strongly associated with LR, cardioversion post BP, and repeat ablation.

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.

Association between specific antiarrhythmic drug prescription in the post-procedural blanking period and recurrent atrial arrhythmias after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if specific AADs prescribed in the blanking period (BP) after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated with reduced risk of early recurrence (ER) and/or late recurrence (LR) of atrial arrhythmias. METHODS: A total of 478 patients undergoing first-time ablation at a single institution were included. Outcomes were: ER, LR, discontinuation of AAD less than 90 days post-ablation, and second ablation. ER was defined as AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT) > 30 seconds within BP. LR was defined as AF/AFL/AT > 30 seconds after BP. RESULTS: Of 478 patients, 14.9% were prescribed no AAD, 26.4% propafenone/flecainide, 34.5% sotalol/dofetilide, 10.7% dronedarone, and 13.6% amiodarone. Patients prescribed amiodarone were more likely to have persistent AF, hypertension, diabetes, and other comorbidities. In unadjusted analyses, there were no differences between groups in relation to ER (log rank P = 0.171), discontinuation of AAD before ninety days post-ablation (log rank P = 0.235), or freedom from second ablation (log rank P = 0.147). After multivariable adjustment, patients prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD [Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1.83, 95% CI 1.10-3.04, p = 0.02; AHR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05-3.05, p = 0.03, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Following first-time catheter ablation, there were no differences between specific AAD prescription and risk of ER, while those prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone in the BP were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD, which may represent an association due to confounding by indication.

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.

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.

Smartphone-Based Geofencing to Ascertain Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Ascertainment of hospitalizations is critical to assess quality of care and the effectiveness and adverse effects of various therapies. Smartphones, mobile geolocators that are ubiquitous, have not been leveraged to ascertain hospitalizations. Therefore, we evaluated the use of smartphone-based geofencing to track hospitalizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants aged ≥18 years installed a mobile application programmed to geofence all hospitals using global positioning systems and cell phone tower triangulation and to trigger a smartphone-based questionnaire when located in a hospital for ≥4 hours. An in-person study included consecutive consenting patients scheduled for electrophysiology and cardiac catheterization procedures. A remote arm invited Health eHeart Study participants who consented and engaged with the study via the internet only. The accuracy of application-detected hospitalizations was confirmed by medical record review as the reference standard. Of 22 eligible in-person patients, 17 hospitalizations were detected (sensitivity 77%; 95% confidence interval, 55%-92%). The length of stay according to the application was positively correlated with the length of stay ascertained via the electronic medical record (r=0.53; P=0.03). In the remote arm, the application was downloaded by 3443 participants residing in all 50 US states; 243 hospital visits at 119 different hospitals were detected through the application. The positive predictive value for an application-reported hospitalization was 65% (95% confidence interval, 57%-72%). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile application-based ascertainment of hospitalizations can be achieved with modest accuracy. This first proof of concept may ultimately be applicable to geofencing other types of prespecified locations to facilitate healthcare research and patient care.