BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether rate or rhythm control is more favorable for patients experiencing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC) secondary to rapid atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the electrophysiological and hemodynamic properties and outcome after AF ablation in 20 patients with a history of decompensated TIC who maintained sinus rhythm or had paroxysmal AF (group 1), 32 with a history of decompensated TIC who had persistent or longstanding persistent AF (group 2), 377 without TIC who had paroxysmal AF (group 3), and 225 without TIC who had persistent or longstanding persistent AF (group 4). The corrected sinus node recovery time was more prolonged in group 2 than in groups 1, 3, or 4 (1,066 ± 946 vs. 416 ± 188, 450 ± 322 and 590 ± 329 milliseconds; P < 0.001, respectively). The mean left atrial pressure in group 2 was greater than that in groups 1, 3, or 4 (13.9 ± 6.5 vs. 7.5 ± 3.1, 8.2 ± 4.1 and 10.8 ± 4.2 mmHg; P < 0.001, respectively). The left ventricular ejection fraction assessed after the recovery from the decompensation was more decreased in group 2 than in group 1; however, it almost returned to normal if sinus rhythm was maintained after the AF ablation in group 2. The presence of a history of TIC did not predict an AF recurrence after the ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate control during AF without sinus conversion may result in an incomplete cure of TIC, suggesting the advantages of rhythm control with ablation in patients with TIC.
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether rate or rhythm control is more favorable for patients experiencing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC) secondary to rapid atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the electrophysiological and hemodynamic properties and outcome after AF ablation in 20 patients with a history of decompensated TIC who maintained sinus rhythm or had paroxysmal AF (group 1), 32 with a history of decompensated TIC who had persistent or longstanding persistent AF (group 2), 377 without TIC who had paroxysmal AF (group 3), and 225 without TIC who had persistent or longstanding persistent AF (group 4). The corrected sinus node recovery time was more prolonged in group 2 than in groups 1, 3, or 4 (1,066 ± 946 vs. 416 ± 188, 450 ± 322 and 590 ± 329 milliseconds; P < 0.001, respectively). The mean left atrial pressure in group 2 was greater than that in groups 1, 3, or 4 (13.9 ± 6.5 vs. 7.5 ± 3.1, 8.2 ± 4.1 and 10.8 ± 4.2 mmHg; P < 0.001, respectively). The left ventricular ejection fraction assessed after the recovery from the decompensation was more decreased in group 2 than in group 1; however, it almost returned to normal if sinus rhythm was maintained after the AF ablation in group 2. The presence of a history of TIC did not predict an AF recurrence after the ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate control during AF without sinus conversion may result in an incomplete cure of TIC, suggesting the advantages of rhythm control with ablation in patients with TIC.