Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: Where do we stand in 2023? - State of the art review.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are common overlapping cardiovascular disorders. Despite important therapeutic advances over the past several decades, controversy persists about whether a rate control or rhythm control approach constitutes the best option in this population. There is also considerable debate about whether antiarrhythmic drug therapy or ablation is the best approach when rhythm control is pursued.  A brief historical examination of the literature addressing this issue will be performed. An analysis of several important clinical outcomes observed in the prospective, randomized studies, which have compared AF ablation to non-ablation treatment options, will be discussed. This review will conclude with recommendations to guide clinicians on the status of AF ablation as a treatment option when considering management options in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

Ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using a second-generation cryoballoon catheter or contact-force sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter: A comparison of costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although noninferiority of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation for antral pulmonary vein isolation (APVI) has been reported in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), it is not clear whether contact force sensing (CF-RFA) and CBA with the second-generation catheter have similar procedural costs and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study is to compare the long-term efficacy and cost implications of CBA and CF-RFA in patients with PAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A first APVI was performed in 146 consecutive patients (age: 63 ± 10 years, men: 95 [65%], left atrial diameter: 42 ± 6 mm) with PAF using CBA (71) or CF-RFA (75). Clinical outcomes and procedural costs were compared. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA than with CF-RFA (98 ± 39 vs. 158 ± 47 minutes, P < 0.0001). Despite a higher equipment cost in the CBA than the CF-RFA group, the total procedure cost was similar between the two groups (P = 0.26), primarily driven by a shorter procedure duration that resulted in a lower anesthesia cost. At 25 ± 5 months after a single ablation procedure, 51 patients (72%) in the CBA, and 55 patients (73%) in the CF-RFA groups remained free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drug therapy (P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The procedure duration was approximately 60 minutes shorter with CBA than CF-RFA. The procedural costs were similar with both approaches. At 2 years after a single procedure, CBA and CF-RFA have similar single-procedure efficacies of 72-73%.

Spectrum of atrial arrhythmias using the ligament of Marshall in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The role of the ligament of Marshall (LOM) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been well defined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the LOM in patients with AF and related arrhythmias. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (mean age 63 ± 11 years; persistent AF in 48 [86%]; ejection fraction 0.49 ± 0.13; left atrial diameter 4.7 ± 0.6 cm) with LOM-mediated arrhythmias were included. RESULTS: A LOM-pulmonary vein (PV) connection was present in 18 patients (32%) and was eliminated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation at the left lateral ridge or crux (n = 12), at the mitral annulus (n = 3), or with alcohol/ethanol (EtOH) ablation of the vein of Marshall (VOM; n = 3). A LOM-mediated atrial tachycardia (AT) was present in 13 patients (23%). Thirty-one patients with refractory mitral isthmus conduction were referred for potential EtOH ablation. In the 6 patients in whom VOM was injected during perimitral reentry, EtOH resulted in slowing in 3 patients and termination in 1 patient. In others, EtOH infusion resulted in complete isolation of the left-sided PVs and left atrial appendage. Repeat RF and adjunctive EtOH ablation of the VOM tended to be more effective in creating conduction block across the mitral isthmus than RF ablation alone (P = .057). CONCLUSION: The LOM is responsible for a variety of arrhythmia mechanisms in patients with AF and atrial tachycardia. It may be ablated at any point along its course, at the mitral annulus, at the lateral ridge/PV antrum, and epicardially in the coronary sinus and the VOM itself. EtOH ablation of the VOM may be an adjunctive strategy in patients with refractory perimitral reentry.