DR-FLASH Score Is Useful for Identifying Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Who Require Extensive Catheter Ablation Procedures.

Background Modification of arrhythmogenic substrates with extensive ablation comprising linear and/or complex fractional atrial electrogram ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI-plus) can theoretically reduce the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. The DR-FLASH score (score based on diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, persistent form of atrial fibrillation, left atrialdiameter >45 mm, age >65 years, female sex, and hypertension) is reportedly useful for identifying patients with arrhythmogenic substrates. We hypothesized that, in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, the DR-FLASH score can be used to classify patients into those who require PVI-plus and those for whom a PVI-only strategy is sufficient. Methods and Results This study is a post hoc subanalysis of the a multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial investigating efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation alone for recurrence prevention compared with extensive ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (EARNEST-PVI trial). This analysis focuses on the relationship between DR-FLASH score and the efficacy of different ablation strategies. We divided the population into 2 groups based on a DR-FLASH score of 3 points. A total of 469 patients were analyzed. Among those with a DR-FLASH score >3 (N=279), the event rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence was significantly lower in the PVI-plus arm than in the PVI-only arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.72]; P<0.001). In contrast, among patients with a DR-FLASH score ≤3 (N=217), no differences were observed in the event rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence between the PVI-only arm and the PVI-plus arm (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.61-1.89]; P=0.795). There was significant interaction between patients with a DR-FLASH score >3 and DR-FLASH score ≤3 (P value for interaction=0.020). Conclusions The DR-FLASH score is a useful tool for deciding the catheter ablation strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03514693.

Suitable Dose of Long-Term Tolvaptan to Reduce Heart Failure Rehospitalizations.

The short-term effectiveness of tolvaptan (TLV) for heart failure (HF) has been established, but the long-term effects are controversial. We investigated HF patients who could not discontinue both loop diuretics and TLV at discharge from AURORA (Acute Heart Failure Registry in Osaka Rosai Hospital). We compared the following factors at discharge between the RH group, consisting of patients with rehospitalizations due to worsening HF within 1 year after discharge (RH group), and non-RH group: age, gender, blood pressure, history of HF admission, electrocardiogram and echocardiographic parameters, atherosclerotic risk factors, laboratory data, and medications. Furthermore, we compared the effects of long-term low-dose TLV (≤ 7.5 mg/day) and high-dose TLV on HF rehospitalizations. The RH group consisted of 81 patients (58.7%). A multivariate analysis revealed that a history of HF admission and the TLV dose were independently and significantly associated with 1-year HF rehospitalizations. A receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that 7.5 mg of TLV was a suitable cutoff value for 1-year HF rehospitalizations. The Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that the HF rehospitalization free ratio was significantly higher in the low-dose TLV group (≤ 7.5 mg/day) than in high-dose TLV group over 1 year.In conclusion, the TLV dose, in addition to a history of HF admission, was associated with 1-year HF rehospitalizations in diuretic-dependent HF patients. In these patients, long-term low-dose TLV (≤ 7.5 mg/day) may be favorable for reducing HF rehospitalizations.

The efficacy and safety of left atrial low-voltage area guided ablation for recurrence prevention compared to pulmonary vein isolation alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation trial: Design and rationale.

Recurrence rates of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are higher in patients with a left atrial low-voltage area (LVA) than those without. However, the efficacy of LVA guided ablation is still unknown. The purpose of this study-the Efficacy and Safety of Left Atrial Low-voltage Area Guided Ablation for Recurrence Prevention Compared to Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation trial (SUPPRESS-AF trial)-is to elucidate whether LVA guided ablation in addition to PVI is superior to PVI alone in patients with persistent AF. The Osaka Cardiovascular Conference will conduct a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aiming to examine whether LVA guided ablation in addition to PVI is superior to PVI alone in patients with persistent AF and LVAs. The primary outcome is the recurrence of AF documented by scheduled or symptom-driven electrocardiography (ECG) during the 1 year follow-up period after the index ablation. The key secondary endpoints include all-cause death, symptomatic stroke, bleeding events, and other complications related to the procedure. A total of 340 patients with an LVA will be enrolled and followed up to 1 year. The SUPPRESS-AF trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess whether LVA guided ablation in addition to PVI is superior to PVI alone for patients with persistent AF and LVAs detected while undergoing their first catheter ablation.

Pulmonary vein isolation alone vs. more extensive ablation with defragmentation and linear ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: the EARNEST-PVI trial.

AIMS: Previous studies could not demonstrate any benefit of more intensive ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) including complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) and linear ablation for recurrence in the initial catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of PVI alone to PVI plus these additional ablation strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with persistent AF who underwent an initial catheter ablation (n = 512, long-standing persistent AF; 128 cases) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either PVI alone (PVI-alone group) or PVI plus CFAE and/or linear ablation (PVI-plus group). After excluding 15 cases who did not receive procedures, we analysed 249 and 248 patients, respectively. The primary endpoint was recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, and/or atrial tachycardia, and the non-inferior margin was set at a hazard ratio of 1.43. In the PVI-plus group, 85.1% of patients had linear ablation and 15.3% CFAE ablation. After 12 months, freedom from the primary endpoint occurred in 71.3% of patients in the PVI-alone group and in 78.3% in the PVI-plus group [hazard ratio = 1.56 (95% confidence interval: 1.10-2.24), non-inferior P = 0.3062]. The procedure-related complication rates were 2.0% in the PVI-alone group and 3.6% in the PVI-plus group (P = 0.199). CONCLUSION: This randomized trial did not establish the non-inferiority of PVI alone to PVI plus linear ablation or CFAE ablation in patients with persistent AF, but implied that the PVI plus strategy was promising to improve the clinical efficacy (NCT03514693).

Effect of Extensive Ablation on Recurrence in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Pulmonary Vein Isolation (EARNEST-PVI) trial: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Although extensive substrate modification in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has been recommended in catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), recent randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated efficacy of such additional ablations. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: The Osaka Cardiovascular Conference will conduct a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aiming to examine whether PVI alone is non-inferior to PVI plus additional ablation such as linear ablation and/or complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation in patients with persistent AF. The primary outcome is recurrence of AF documented by scheduled or symptom-driven electrocardiogram tests during a 1-year follow-up period after the index ablation. The key secondary endpoints include all-cause death, occurrence of symptomatic stroke, complications related to the procedure, and quality of life assessment using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. The clinical impact of the presence or absence of AF trigger foci, and their origins in cases with them, on the results of catheter ablation will also be investigated as an exploratory endpoint. A total of 512 patients will be enrolled and followed up to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The EARNEST-PVI trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess whether PVI alone is non-inferior to extended substrate ablation for patients with persistent AF undergoing a first catheter ablation.