RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The best management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Patients with incident AF occurring between 2000 and 2014 with a prior or concurrent HF were included. Patients with LVEF ≥ 50% were designated as HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those with LVEF < 50% were designated as HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Rhythm control in the first year after AF diagnosis was defined as prescriptions for an antiarrhythmic drug, catheter ablation, or maze procedure. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Of 859 patients (age, 77.2 ± 12.1 years; 49.2%, female), 447 had HFpEF-AF, and 412 had HFrEF-AF. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10-year mortality, 83% vs 79%; p = .54) or secondary endpoints between the HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF, respectively. Compared with the rate control strategy, rhythm control in HFpEF-AF patients (n = 40, 15.9%) offered no survival benefits (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; p = .16), whereas rhythm control in HFrEF-AF patients (n = 52, 22.5%) decrease cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.86; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF had similar poor prognoses. Rhythm control strategy was seldom adopted in community care in patients with HF and AF. A rhythm control strategy may provide survival benefit for patients with HFrEF-AF and the benefit of rhythm control in patients with HFpEF-AF warrants further study.