Literature DB >> 31760819

Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial.

Karl-Heinz Kuck1, Béla Merkely2, Ralf Zahn3, Thomas Arentz4, Karlheinz Seidl5, Michael Schlüter6, Roland Richard Tilz1, Christopher Piorkowski7, László Gellér2, Thomas Kleemann, Gerhard Hindricks7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial.
METHODS: Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility.
RESULTS: Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%; P=0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; defibrillators; heart failure; randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31760819     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1941-3084


  26 in total

1.  Catheter ablation or surgery to eliminate longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Rajan L Shah; Junaid A B Zaman; Sanjiv M Narayan
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 4.164

2.  Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

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

3.  Optimal Catheter Ablation Strategy for Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Cheng-Ming Ma; Ye-Jian He; Wen-Wen Li; Hua-Min Tang; Shi-Yu Dai; Xiao-Meng Yin; Xian-Jie Xiao; Yun-Long Xia; Lian-Jun Gao; Yuan-Jun Sun; Zhong-Zhen Wang; Rong-Feng Zhang
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 4.  Putative protective effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on atrial fibrillation through risk factor modulation and off-target actions: potential mechanisms and future directions.

Authors:  Syona S Shetty; Andrew Krumerman
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 8.949

Review 5.  Management of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias in Heart Failure-an Interventionalist's Point of View.

Authors:  Jason A Gencher; Nathaniel M Hawkins; Marc W Deyell; Jason G Andrade
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2022-03-30

Review 6.  Management of atrial fibrillation: two decades of progress - a scientific statement from the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society.

Authors:  Samuel Lévy; Gerhard Steinbeck; Luca Santini; Michael Nabauer; Diego Penela Maceda; Bharat K Kantharia; Sanjeev Saksena; Riccardo Cappato
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 1.759

Review 7.  Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: current indications and evolving technologies.

Authors:  Ramanathan Parameswaran; Ahmed M Al-Kaisey; Jonathan M Kalman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 8.  Why translation from basic discoveries to clinical applications is so difficult for atrial fibrillation and possible approaches to improving it.

Authors:  Stanley Nattel; Philip T Sager; Jörg Hüser; Jordi Heijman; Dobromir Dobrev
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 10.787

9.  Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.

Authors:  Douglas L Packer; Jonathan P Piccini; Kristi H Monahan; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Adam P Silverstein; Peter A Noseworthy; Jeanne E Poole; Tristram D Bahnson; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 10.  Timely and individualized heart failure management: need for implementation into the new guidelines.

Authors:  Amr Abdin; Johann Bauersachs; Norbert Frey; Ingrid Kindermann; Andreas Link; Nikolaus Marx; Mitja Lainscak; Jonathan Slawik; Christian Werner; Jan Wintrich; Michael Böhm
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 5.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.