Predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation in patients with heart failure: Validity of the APPLE and CAAP-AF risk scoring systems.

BACKGROUND: Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) improves cardiovascular outcomes. Risk scores (CAAP-AF and APPLE) have been developed to predict the likelihood of AF recurrence after ablation, have not been validated specifically in patients with AF and HF. METHODS: We analyzed baseline characteristics, risk scores, and rates of AF recurrence 12 months postablation in a cohort of 230 consecutive patients with AF and HF undergoing PVI in the Duke Center for Atrial Fibrillation registry from 2009-2013. RESULTS: During a follow-up period of 12 months, 76 of 230 (33%) patients with HF experienced recurrent AF after ablation. The median APPLE and CAAP-AF scores were 1.5 ([Q1, Q3]: [1.0, 2.0]) and 4.0 ([Q1, Q3]: [3.0, 5.0]), respectively and were not different from those patients with and without recurrent AF. Freedom from AF was not different according to APPLE and CAAP-AF scores. Discrimination for recurrent AF with the CAAP-AF score was modest with a C-statistic of 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.67). Discrimination with the APPLE score was similarly modest, with a C-statistic of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.47-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Validated predictive risk scores for recurrent AF after catheter ablation exhibit limited predictive ability in cohorts of AF and HF. Additional tools are needed to facilitate risk stratification and patient selection for AF ablation in patients with concomitant HF.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF). Few studies have compared clinical outcomes after catheter ablation between patients with and those without DM. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare AF ablation outcomes in patients with and those without DM. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 351 consecutive patients who underwent first-time AF ablation. Clinical outcomes included freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia, symptom burden (Mayo AF Symptom Inventory score), cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalizations, and periprocedural complications. RESULTS: Patients with DM (n = 65) were older, had a higher body mass index, more persistent AF, more hypertension, and larger left atrial diameter (P <.05 for all). Median (Q1, Q3) total radiofrequency duration [64.0 (43.6, 81.4) minutes vs 54.3 (39.2, 76.4) minutes; P = .132] and periprocedural complications (P = .868) did not differ between patients with and those without DM. After a median follow-up of 29.5 months, arrhythmia recurrence was significantly higher in the DM group compared to the no-DM group after adjustment for baseline differences (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.24; 95% confidence [CI] 1.42-3.55; P = .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher AF recurrence with worse glycemic levels (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.99-1.69; P = .064). CONCLUSION: Although safety outcomes associated with AF ablation were similar between patients with and those without DM, arrhythmia-free survival was significantly lower among patients with DM. Poor glycemic control seems to an important risk factor for AF recurrence.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of AF ablation in patients with HFpEF vs HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 230 patients with HF who underwent AF ablation, including 97 (42.2%) with HFrEF and 133 (57.8%) with HFpEF. Outcomes included adverse events, symptoms (Mayo AF Symptom Inventory [MAFSI]), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia at 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 150 of 230 patients had nonparoxysmal AF (62.8% HFpEF vs 63.0% HFrEF). Patients with HFpEF had a smaller mean left atrial diameter (4.4 ± 0.8 cm vs 4.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .013) and were less likely to be taking a beta-blocker at baseline (72.9% vs 85.6%; P = .022). Median (Q1, Q3) procedure times (233 minutes [192, 290] vs 233.5 minutes [193.0, 297.5]; P = .780) and adverse events such as acute HF (3.8% vs 6.2%; P = .395) were similar between HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia was not significantly different in HFpEF vs HFrEF patients (33.9% vs 32.6%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 0.72-3.01), with similar improvements in NYHA functional class (-0.32 vs -0.19; P = .135) and MAFSI symptom severity (-0.23 vs -0.09; P = .116) after ablation. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation of AF seems to have similar effectiveness in patients with HF, regardless of presence of systolic dysfunction. There were no significant differences in procedural characteristics, arrhythmia-free recurrence, or functional improvements between patients with HFpEF and those with HFrEF.