This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk. Purpose: To compare benefits and harms between catheter ablation and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), EBSCO Information Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from 1 January 2005 to 1 October 2018. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 6 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus drug therapy in adults with AF and HF. Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: 6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, -9.02 points [CI, -19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]). Limitation: Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials. Conclusion: Catheter ablation was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events. Primary Funding Source: None.
This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk. Purpose: To compare benefits and harms between catheter ablation and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), EBSCO Information Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from 1 January 2005 to 1 October 2018. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 6 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus drug therapy in adults with AF and HF. Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: 6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, -9.02 points [CI, -19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]). Limitation: Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials. Conclusion: Catheter ablation was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events. Primary Funding Source: None.
Authors: Derek S Chew; Zak Loring; Jatin Anand; Marat Fudim; Angela Lowenstern; Jennifer A Rymer; Kristin E D Weimer; Brett D Atwater; Adam D DeVore; Derek V Exner; Peter A Noseworthy; Clyde W Yancy; Daniel B Mark; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-12-07
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; William T Abraham; Christopher Dufton; Ian A Carroll; Jeff S Healey; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; William H Sauer; Inder S Anand; Michel White; Stephen B Wilton; Ryan Aleong; Michiel Rienstra; Steven K Krueger; Felix Ayala-Paredes; Yaariv Khaykin; Bela Merkely; Vladimir Miloradović; Jerzy K Wranicz; Leonard Ilkhanoff; Paul D Ziegler; Gordon Davis; Laura L Emery; Debra Marshall; David P Kao; Michael R Bristow; Stuart J Connolly Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Derek S Chew; Yanhong Li; Patricia A Cowper; Kevin J Anstrom; Jonathan P Piccini; Jeanne E Poole; Melanie R Daniels; Kristi H Monahan; Linda Davidson-Ray; Tristram D Bahnson; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Kerry L Lee; Douglas L Packer; Daniel B Mark Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Shannon Woolley; Haojia Li; Candice Crawford; Christopher A Groh; Leenhapong Navaravong; Ravi Ranjan; Brian Zenger; Yue Zhang; T Jared Bunch Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; DaJuanicia N Holmes; Karen Pieper; Larry A Allen; Paul S Chan; Michael D Ezekowitz; James V Freeman; Gregg C Fonarow; Bernard J Gersh; Elaine M Hylek; Peter R Kowey; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Gerald Naccarelli; James Reiffel; Daniel E Singer; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-04-16
Authors: Ambarish Pandey; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Sameer Arora; Arman Qamar; Robert J Mentz; Sanjiv J Shah; Patricia P Chang; Stuart D Russell; Wayne D Rosamond; Melissa C Caughey Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Zhen Li; Emily C O'Brien; Jessica Pritchard; Derek S Chew; T Jared Bunch; Daniel B Mark; Yelena Nabutovsky; Melissa A Greiner; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Mingyuan Zhang; Jason Bensch; Ann Lyons; T Jared Bunch; Jonathan P Piccini; Alfonso Siu; John A Spertus; Josef Stehlik; Peter Wohlfahrt; Tom Greene; Rachel Hess; James C Fang Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 5.712