Charlotte Eitel1, Hueseyin Ince2, Johannes Brachmann3, Karl-Heinz Kuck4, Stephan Willems5, Jin-Hong Gerds-Li6, Juergen Tebbenjohanns7, Gert Richardt8, Matthias Hochadel9, Jochen Senges9, Roland R Tilz10,4. 1. University Heart Center Lübeck, Medical Clinic II (Cardiology/Angiology/Intensive Care Medicine), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. charlotteeitel@gmx.de. 2. Vivantes Klinika Am Urban und im Friedrichshain und Universitäres Herzzentrum Rostock, Berlin, Germany. 3. Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany. 4. Asklepios Klinik St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Universitäres Herzzentrum, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 7. Helios Klinikum Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany. 8. Segeberger KIiniken, Segeberg, Germany. 9. Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 10. University Heart Center Lübeck, Medical Clinic II (Cardiology/Angiology/Intensive Care Medicine), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, but data on the prognostic value of differing ablation strategies according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are rare. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2007 until January 2010, 728 patients with HF were enrolled in the multi-center German ablation registry prior to AF catheter ablation. Patients were divided into three groups according to LVEF: HF with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%, HFpEF, n = 333), mid-range LVEF (40-49%, HFmrEF, n = 207), and reduced LVEF (< 40%, HFrEF, n = 188). Ablation strategies differed significantly between the three groups with the majority of patients with HFpEF (83.4%) and HFmrEF (78.4%) undergoing circumferential pulmonary vein isolation vs. 48.9% of patients with HFrEF. The latter underwent ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in 47.3%. Major complications did not differ between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a significant mortality increase in patients with HFrEF (6.1% in HFrEF vs. 1.5% in HFmrEF vs. 1.9% in HFpEF, p = 0.009) that was limited to patients undergoing ablation of the AV node. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation strategies differ significantly in patients with HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. In almost 50% of patients with HFrEF AV-node ablation was performed, going along with a significant increase in mortality rate. These results should raise efforts to further evaluate the prognostic effect of ablation strategies in HF patients.
BACKGROUND:Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, but data on the prognostic value of differing ablation strategies according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are rare. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2007 until January 2010, 728 patients with HF were enrolled in the multi-center German ablation registry prior to AF catheter ablation. Patients were divided into three groups according to LVEF: HF with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%, HFpEF, n = 333), mid-range LVEF (40-49%, HFmrEF, n = 207), and reduced LVEF (< 40%, HFrEF, n = 188). Ablation strategies differed significantly between the three groups with the majority of patients with HFpEF (83.4%) and HFmrEF (78.4%) undergoing circumferential pulmonary vein isolation vs. 48.9% of patients with HFrEF. The latter underwent ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in 47.3%. Major complications did not differ between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a significant mortality increase in patients with HFrEF (6.1% in HFrEF vs. 1.5% in HFmrEF vs. 1.9% in HFpEF, p = 0.009) that was limited to patients undergoing ablation of the AV node. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation strategies differ significantly in patients with HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. In almost 50% of patients with HFrEF AV-node ablation was performed, going along with a significant increase in mortality rate. These results should raise efforts to further evaluate the prognostic effect of ablation strategies in HF patients.
Authors: Thomas Fink; Andreas Metzner; Stephan Willems; Lars Eckardt; Hüseyin Ince; Johannes Brachmann; Stefan G Spitzer; Thomas Deneke; Claus Schmitt; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Andreas Rillig Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Omar M Aldaas; Florentino Lupercio; Douglas Darden; Praneet S Mylavarapu; Chaitanya L Malladi; Frederick T Han; Kurt S Hoffmayer; David Krummen; Gordon Ho; Farshad Raissi; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Gregory K Feld; Jonathan C Hsu Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kevin Willy; Kristina Wasmer; Dirk G Dechering; Julia Köbe; Philipp S Lange; Nils Bögeholz; Christian Ellermann; Florian Reinke; Gerrit Frommeyer; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Shinwan Kany; Johannes Brachmann; Thorsten Lewalter; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Dietrich Andresen; Stephan Willems; Ellen Hoffmann; Lars Eckardt; Dierk Thomas; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Andreas Metzner; Andreas Rillig Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jan Wintrich; Ingrid Kindermann; Christian Ukena; Simina Selejan; Christian Werner; Christoph Maack; Ulrich Laufs; Carsten Tschöpe; Stefan D Anker; Carolyn S P Lam; Adriaan A Voors; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ann-Kathrin Rahm; Patrick Lugenbiel; Marco Ochs; Benjamin Meder; Dierk Thomas; Hugo A Katus; Eberhard Scholz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 5.460