Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure

AtriAl FibrillAtion AblAtion in HeArt FAilure

*C. Balla, °R. Cappato

*Cardiovascular Center, university of Ferrara, Ferrara, italy. °Humanitas Clinical & research Center & Humanitas university, Department of biomedical Sciences, Milan, italy.

Abstract Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Heart Failure (HF) commonly coexist in the same patient and either condition predisposes to the other. Several mechani - sms promote the pathophysiological relationship between AF and HF, redu - cing quality of life, increasing the risk of stroke and worsening HF progres - sion. Although restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm would be ideal for those patients, several trials comparing rhythm and rate control failed to show a benefit of rhythm control strategy, achieved with pharmacological therapy, in terms of hospitalization for HF or death. Caheter ablation is a well-established option for symptomatic AF pa - tients, resistant to drug therapy, with normal cardiac function. Several recent studies have shown an improvement in clinical outcomes after AF ablation in HF patients highlighting the emerging role of the invasive approach in this subset of patients. However, several concerns regarding patients’ selection and standardization of the procedure still remain to be addressed.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Heart Failure (HF) frequently coexist in the same patient, often promoting the course of each other. Left Ventricular (LV) dysfunction is found in about 30% of patients with AF. Conversely, AF can deteriorate LV function determining the occurrence and favouring the progres - sion of HF 1. Several mechanisms may promote this relationship, including loss of atrial systole, high ventricular rate and irregular ventricular filling with time impairment of myocardial function. Finally, persistently elevated left atrial pressure and chronic neuro-hormonal upregulation may lead to atrial fi - brosis favouring AF in patients with HF. 65 In the past decade, several studies have evaluated the role of rhythm con - trol strategies for improving the outcome of patients with AF and HF. Althou - gh restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with AF and HF is attractive, seve - ral trials using antiarrhythmic drugs to restore sinus rhythm failed to result in a significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Herein, we review the current knowledge, unanswered questions and future perspectives of AF ablation in HF patients. rate versus rhythm control

Large prospective randomized trials have identified AF as an independent risk marker of mortality and HF progression in patients with left ventricular dysfunction 2. The coexistence of the two conditions is associated with reduced quality of life, worsened HF progression and increased risk of stroke. The - refore, it is common practice to attempt at restoration and maintenance of steady sinus rhythm in patients with AF and HF. Several studies were perfor - med to investigate the effectiveness of rhythm versus rate control strategy in AF patients showing similar outcomes 3. Of these, the AF-CHF trial investiga - ted patients with clinically documented HF. In this study, patients with symp - tomatic HF (NYHA II-IV) and a LVEF <35% were randomized to pharmaco - logical rate versus rhythm control (in the latter group mainly based on amio - darone administration). The study showed no differences of death from car - diovascular causes in the two groups 4. It is well known that QT prolongation, conduction block, proarrhythmia effect and non-cardiac side effects are asso - ciated with the use of AADs. In the HF population, selection of an AAD is mainly based on amiodarone and its use is associated with an increased risk of thyroid, neurologic, skin, eye and pulmonary toxicity due to the progressive accumulation of the drug in the tissues, especially in case of chronic use, so - metimes requiring treatment discontinuation 5. In summary, the adverse events related to the use of AADs may potentially neutralize the benefit of restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with HF. In these patients, permanent restoration of sinus rhythm using methods other than drug therapy may provi - de an optimal model to test the true impact of rhythm control on clinical out - come 3.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

Catheter ablation of AF has emerged as a potential strategy in patients with HF. Initial results of catheter ablation versus rate control in HF patients were reported in small studies and early Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), although the small number of patients included and the design of the studies limited the strength of data 6-9 . A recent meta-analysis of prospective randomi - zed clinical trials comparing catheter ablation versus rate control strategies in patients with HF and AF showed a significant improvement in Left Ventricu - lar Ejection Fraction (LVEF), quality of life and functional capacity. Data from this meta-analysis indicate AF burden reduction as a possible cause of functional improvement since 22% to 50% of patients had AF episodes after ablation 3,6,7,9 . 66 More recently, the Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of Atrial Fi - brillation in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure (AATAC) study aimed to evaluate a rhythm control strategy in both arms by comparing AF catheter ablation versus pharmacologic rhythm control with amiodarone 10 . The study enrolled HF patients with LVEF < 40%, a NYHA class II-III, persistent AF and an implantable defibrillator (ICD) provided with an atrial lead (tab. I). The study showed a superiority of catheter ablation in achieving freedom from AF recurrences compared to amiodarone therapy, with a favorable effect on rates of death and unplanned hospitalization. During 24-month follow-up, 70% of patients in the ablation arm (95% CI, 60%-78%) and 34% in the control arm (95% CI, 25%-44%) remained free from arrhythmia recurrences. Perma - nent restoration of sinus rhythm was associated with functional improvement suggestive of a direct role of stable sinus rhythm on cardiac contractility. In this study, the presence of a transvenous atrial lead provided accurate monito - ring of arrhythmia episodes. The high selectivity of the population, the median time in AF before enrollment, the high discontinuation rate of amiodarone and the lack of uniformity of the ablation procedure have raised some criticism about the applicability of AATAC results in daily practice 11 . The recent Catheter Ablation versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CASTLE-AF) trial assessed for the first time the impact of AF catheter ablation compared to medical therapy (ra - te or rhythm control) on mortality and progression rates in patients. The study enrolled symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF with a NYHA class II-IV, LVEF <35% and an implanted device. In this population, catheter ablation was associated with a significant reduction of the composite of death and hospita - lization compared to medical therapy (HR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87) (tab. I). Moreover, a benefit in all cause mortality alone, mainly driven by a reduction of cardiovascular deaths, was described in the ablation group 12 . The study ad - ded important results to the current literature regarding hard endpoints such as mortality and hospitalization after AF catheter ablation in HF patients. The continuous monitoring to check for AF recurrences and the secon - dary endpoints of 6 minutes walking distance and LVEF allowed an extensive characterization of the response after ablation compared to medical therapy. Similar to what previously reported, the clinical benefit was correlated with a reduction in the burden of recorded AF. A potential limitation of CASTLE-AF stems on the observation that procedures were performed by experienced ope - rators in high-volume medical centers. In addition, there was a large heteroge - neity in the ablation technique by the different operators. Current guidelines recommend catheter ablation of AF in symptomatic patients with HF in order to improve symptoms and cardiac function, in parti - cular when tachycardiomyopathy is suspected 13 . However, several questions remains to be answered regarding success rate on those patients after a single procedure, selection of appropriate patients, type and timing of procedure.

Selection of candidates to catheter ablation, procedural features, compli - cation and success rates

Abnormalities in atrial electrophysiological properties, such as increased 67 E L I T s P A C M e A S C C e n a o t A R A g A A A t h

a b l u a a e B T a C M S M c l t d l n e n A D A i T . - o T E d c H 1

y C E - o 0 n A R e a I C F L n ; 1 F : m A

1 H - - a 8 C A 7 - C

l e F d M P F F n M

9 E t R r 1 . = 3 i = I n

c C 6 C P i a p o a r m 3 2 a d t 6 5 5 8 4 i 6 0 i l e p 8 0 2 1 1 o

3 3 n l s M e t t x y u s

o 1 d F p 0 r i 4 6 2 3 7 5 e a a 0 6 2 6 3 3 0 t c s % h % % % % % % t

i y o

o a ;

n d n I n i i i i i i A C E s s s s s s a i d

I o c c c c c c F t C D e A N N o e N

p h h h h h h = t D

d f Y Y f a F e e e e e e Y i

o e E E E E E E E

t E m m m m m m H H

H r H h a o E F F F F F F F l

j a o A A e i i i i i i i A r < < < < < < < t l C c c c c c c c F e

b u c g

3 3 3 5 4 4 4

C R c I I t I l r C C C C C C C 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 y I I I a i t e T R - - o - r % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M I I t I o D s V V n T I i I g o

F r n a r

m a i 3 4 2 c 1 1 1 1 n s 0 9 8 t 7 0 0 0 5 0 7

; i % % % o

0 0 0 0 1 0 2 H 6 A n % % % % % % %

M F ; F p p p

I W a a a

C p p p p p p p p p r r r e e e e e e e T o o o D u a r r r r r r r = x x x = b s s s s s s s t y y y

i i i i i i i t

l s s s s s s s 6 s s s e i I s t t t t t t t m m m m

e e e e e e e r h M n n n n n n n n p a a a e t t t t t t t i l l l l n a l d i n u n P P a

e t t n V V w e a a d I I

b P P r

P P i W S

± t l ± ± ± V V e m V V a h t

I I e b I I C i

l l l l l l C C i

C n i i i i i i l p t l ± ± n n n n n n k A ± ± a s F r F F

a i a e e e e e e

t n t E b w t E E r a a i l a a a a a a a a r o h

d g

d d

a l i r r r r r r d d i a a s n

i e s a a

d d o t d d T e b l l l l l l

t t b b e

e e e e e e v i i h i a i i : e t t l o l t l t l g s s s s s s

a e i i a a a m t i i s o o P o o i i i i i i

t n r y t t o o o o o o t s i n n t r i i u n n V o ; o

o e o n n n n n n

t a a s a a n I

r n n Q o s s s s s s , l l ,

l l

t f D o e

L e n M M M M M = f

b y e e e e e a Q r e d d d d d b i l A u i i i i i a l c c c c c l a a M a s m A r a a a a a t l t s t o V i l l l l l i i t r e

o o . r y

a r r r r r ; n d d n

a a a a a

o a C o t t t t t i e c + e e e e e f r d g R

a e L c c c c c C y T n l

o o o o o f = e R e n n n n n

T ; t t t t t C

r r r r r B o o o o o a l l l l l N r d P i A a s = 6 c u

b 3

B 7 8 7 8 7 5 c r l R . a - 1 5 8 0 3 8 0 a c e t t % % % % % % % t y e i s e o p y s h e n n s ↑ o

↑ N s h p E a h r a a o i ↑ M t F o t n g r n a ↑ n , s i d ↑ r o

u d l i e i p E z e

z r r

a N a i B E t e a x x Q t E ↑ a t t a t e e t F o N e i l i i o F o l i c ↓ o r r ,

i r t P c c

L , z n d

M n

6 a i i 6 i

P R

i i

s s n n A f M i i i i t o a M T i n n n n e e e f

n i e

e o F n r h L p

a t W s r n d

a a a a p p e a a G t e b r u i

b b b b T

r e e l b d T e n i l E a i u t l a l l l l r r

n l c

e c t a a a a y a p f f

n a t a s

o o u ; e

t t t t n i t y n p

a o i i i i n i a r r r s o o o o e o L ; d m m b l r n d

a n n n n g e n G

P l

d n a a a n

n a

Q a Q E V a a a a a

a n t n n

c t r i H o i = r r r r r E r I m o o e c c e v = m m m m m m L

d F F L n e e e s

, L

P a u t e l F m

3 1 1 2 M G o 7 2 2 6 6 6 4 o l

a n l e m m m m m m m o d a d w o r o o o o o o o y i l n n n n n n n a i

- n t t t t t t t n V u h h h h h h h i u e

p s s s s s s s m i n

68 atrial refractory period, increased atrial conduction time along the low lateral right atrium and coronary sinus and function delay at the crista terminalis and at the Bachmann bundle, may cause more complex arrhythmia manifestations in HF patients. Pre-procedural risk stratification tools to identify patients who might benefit more from catheter ablation, could avoid unnecessary procedu - res or offer different approaches in these subset of patients. In the Catheter Ablation versus Medical Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Dy - sfunction (CAMERA-MRI) study, patients with idiopathic cardiomyopathy and persistent AF were all studied with cardiac magnetic resonance (MRI) and randomized to catheter ablation or rate control therapy. A significant improve - ment in LVEF was found in patients after catheter ablation compared to pa - tients randomized to medical therapy despite optimal rate control. In the abla - tion group, patients without evidence of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) had better results on ventricular function after the procedure compared to LGE positive patients, suggesting that cardiac MRI could identify HF patients who may benefit more from catheter ablation. Moreover, the study highlights the positive impact of sinus rhythm on ventricular function compared to an opti - mal rate control (tab. I) 14 . As summarized in table I, in all studies the ablation strategy was left to best operator judgment which led to a large heterogeneity of techniques. Although many tools were introduced in the last decade to improve the efficacy of AF ablation, a standardized approach for the procedure is currently lacking. A recent meta-analysis from clinical trials and observational studies of AF ablation in HF patients found no difference in sinus rhythm persistence between PVI alone approaches versus extensive left atrial ablation 15 . Therefo - re, since a more extensive ablation could be preferred in this subset of patients and considering the potential need of additional procedures in up to 40-50% of the patients increasing the risk of complications, the selection of the appropria - te candidate for AF ablation should be considered a substantial element to in - crease success and safety in HF patients 16 . In summary, catheter ablation in patients with AF and HF appears promi - sing. Several concerns remain regarding patients’ selection and standardization of the ablation approach to best weight risks and benefits of the procedure in this population.

REFERENCES

11) Santhanakrishnan R, Wang N, Larso et al. Atrial Fibrillation Begets Heart Failure and Vice Versa: Temporal Associations and Differences in Preserved Versus Re - duced Ejection Fraction. Circulation 2016; 133(5):484-92 12) Dries DL, Exner DV, Gersh BJ, Domanski MJ, Waclawiw MA, Stevenson LW. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk for mortality and heart failu - re progression in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular sy - stolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis of the SOLVD trials. Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32(3):695-703 13) Al-Khatib SM, Allen LaPointe NM, Chatterjee R, et al. Rate- and rhythm-control therapies in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(11):760-73

69 14) Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Congestive Heart Failure I. Rhythm control ver - sus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(25):2667-77 15) Vorperian VR, Havighurst TC, Miller S, January CT. Adverse effects of low dose amiodarone: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30(3):791-8 16) Hunter RJ, Berriman TJ, Diab I, et al. A randomized controlled trial of catheter ablation versus medical treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure (the CAM - TAF trial). Circulation Arrhythmia and electrophysiology 2014; 7(1):31-8 17) Jones DG, Haldar SK, Hussain W, et al. A randomized trial to assess catheter ablation versus rate control in the management of persistent atrial fibrillation in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61(18):1894-903 18) Khan MN, Jais P, Cummings J, et al. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrilla - tion in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(17):1778-85 19) MacDonald MR, Connelly DT, Hawkins NM, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced heart failure and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a randomised controlled trial. Heart 2011; 97(9):740-7 10) Di Biase L, Mohanty P, Mohanty S, et al. Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treat - ment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device: Results From the AATAC Multicenter Randomized Trial. Circulation 2016; 133(17):1637-44 11) Koplan BA, Stevenson WG. Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Should Catheter Ablation Play a Larger Role? Circulation 2016; 133(17):1631-3 12) Marrouche NF, Kheirkhahan M, Brachmann J. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fi - brillation with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(5):492 13) Kirchhof P, Lip GY, Van Gelder IC, Bax J, et al. Comprehensive risk reduction in patients with atrial fibrillation: emerging diagnostic and therapeutic options-a re - port from the 3rd Atrial Fibrillation Competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference. Europace 2012; 14(1):8-27 14) Prabhu S, Taylor AJ, Costello BT, Kaye DM et al. Catheter Ablation Versus Me - dical Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Dysfunction: The CAMERA- MRI Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70(16):1949-61 15) Anselmino M, Matta M, D'Ascenzo F, et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review and me - ta-analysis. Circulation Arrhythmia and electrophysiology 2014; 7(6):1011-8 16) Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SO - LAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fi - brillation. Heart rhythm: the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society 2017; 14(10):e275-e444