BACKGROUND: Evaluation of ventricular rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) can be difficult, and the presence of an AF-induced ventricular cardiomyopathy due to intermittent poor rate control or other causes may be underestimated. The outcome with AF ablation in patients with a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may provide insight into this important clinical issue. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of pulmonary vein isolation on LVEF in patients with AF and decreased LVEF (< or = 50%). METHODS: Ablation consisted of proximal isolation of arrhythmogenic pulmonary veins (PVs) and elimination of non-PV triggers. LVEF was determined within 24 hours after ablation and again at up to 6 months follow-up. Transtelephonic monitoring was performed routinely for 2-3 weeks prior to ablation, at 6 weeks, and 6 months post and with symptoms following ablation. AF control was defined as freedom from AF or marked (>90%) reduction in AF burden on or off previously ineffective antiarrhythmic medication. RESULTS: AF ablation was performed in 366 patients and 67 (18%) patients had decreased LV function with a mean LVEF of 42 +/- 9%. An average of 3.4 +/- 0.9 PVs were isolated. AF control in the depressed LVEF group compared favorably with the normal EF group (86% vs. 87% P = NS), although more redo procedures were required (1.6 +/- 0.8 vs 1.3 +/- 0.6 procedures; P < or = 0.05). Only 15 of 67 patients (22%) with decreased LVEF had shown tachycardia (>100 bpm) on repeated preablation ECG recordings during AF. In the decreased LVEF group, the LVEF increased from 42 +/- 9% to 56 +/- 8% (P < 0.001) after ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and decreased LVEF undergoing AF ablation have similar success to patients with normal LVEF and have improvement in LVEF after ablation. These results suggest the presence of a reversible AF-induced ventricular cardiomyopathy in many patients with AF and depressed LV function. The presence of under-recognized and reversible cardiomyopathy even when tachycardia is not persistent is important to recognize.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of ventricular rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) can be difficult, and the presence of an AF-induced ventricular cardiomyopathy due to intermittent poor rate control or other causes may be underestimated. The outcome with AF ablation in patients with a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may provide insight into this important clinical issue. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of pulmonary vein isolation on LVEF in patients with AF and decreased LVEF (< or = 50%). METHODS: Ablation consisted of proximal isolation of arrhythmogenic pulmonary veins (PVs) and elimination of non-PV triggers. LVEF was determined within 24 hours after ablation and again at up to 6 months follow-up. Transtelephonic monitoring was performed routinely for 2-3 weeks prior to ablation, at 6 weeks, and 6 months post and with symptoms following ablation. AF control was defined as freedom from AF or marked (>90%) reduction in AF burden on or off previously ineffective antiarrhythmic medication. RESULTS:AF ablation was performed in 366 patients and 67 (18%) patients had decreased LV function with a mean LVEF of 42 +/- 9%. An average of 3.4 +/- 0.9 PVs were isolated. AF control in the depressed LVEF group compared favorably with the normal EF group (86% vs. 87% P = NS), although more redo procedures were required (1.6 +/- 0.8 vs 1.3 +/- 0.6 procedures; P < or = 0.05). Only 15 of 67 patients (22%) with decreased LVEF had shown tachycardia (>100 bpm) on repeated preablation ECG recordings during AF. In the decreased LVEF group, the LVEF increased from 42 +/- 9% to 56 +/- 8% (P < 0.001) after ablation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with AF and decreased LVEF undergoing AF ablation have similar success to patients with normal LVEF and have improvement in LVEF after ablation. These results suggest the presence of a reversible AF-induced ventricular cardiomyopathy in many patients with AF and depressed LV function. The presence of under-recognized and reversible cardiomyopathy even when tachycardia is not persistent is important to recognize.
Authors: Jan W Schrickel; Markus Linhart; Dietmar Bänsch; Daniel Thomas; Georg Nickenig Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Stephen Pizzale; Robert Lemery; Martin S Green; Michael H Gollob; Anthony S L Tang; David H Birnie Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Liang-Han Ling; Peter M Kistler; Jonathan M Kalman; Richard J Schilling; Ross J Hunter Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 32.419