Dibbendhu Khanra1, Saurabh Deshpande2, Anindya Mukherjee3, Siddhratha Mohan4, Hassan Khan5, Sanjeev Kathuria6, Danesh Kella7, Deepak Padmanabhan2. 1. Heart and Lung Centre, New Cross Hospital, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Cardiology, Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiac Sciences and Research, Bengaluru, India. 3. Department of Cardiology, NRS Medical College, Kolkata, India. 4. Department of Medicine, New Cross Hospital, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom. 5. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Cardiology, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India. 7. Piedmont Healthcare, Greater Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) with heart failure (HF) arguably constitutes the sickest subset of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods: A systematic search was made in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Network meta-analysis (NMA) of PeAF patients with systolic HF comparing all-cause mortality, change in HF-related quality of life (QoL) and hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF) were performed among catheter ablation (CA) of AF, rate-controlling drugs (RCDs), anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs), and atrio-ventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) using Bayesian random effect model. Results: Ablation strategies resulted significantly lower mortality than medical therapies (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.76). CA of AF was associated with lower trend of mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.08 to 7.63) in comparison to AVNA in the Bayesian NMA. Rhythm control strategies resulted significantly higher improvement of QoL than rate control strategies (mean difference [MD], -12.78; 95% CI, -21.26 to -4.31). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF was better than AAD (MD, -7.98; 95% CrI, -27.68 to 8.27), however ranked AVNA to be lowest. Ablation strategies provided significantly lower HHF than medical therapies (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.58). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF performed not only better than AAD (OR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.09 to 1.3) to reduce HHF, but also than AVNA (OR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 4.76). Of note, RCD ranked lowest with regard to mortality and HHF. Conclusions: CA of AF remains the best strategy even for the sickest group of PeAF patients with systolic HF in regards to all-cause mortality, HF-related QoL and HHF.
Background and Objectives: Persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) with heart failure (HF) arguably constitutes the sickest subset of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods: A systematic search was made in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Network meta-analysis (NMA) of PeAF patients with systolic HF comparing all-cause mortality, change in HF-related quality of life (QoL) and hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF) were performed among catheter ablation (CA) of AF, rate-controlling drugs (RCDs), anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs), and atrio-ventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) using Bayesian random effect model. Results: Ablation strategies resulted significantly lower mortality than medical therapies (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.76). CA of AF was associated with lower trend of mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.08 to 7.63) in comparison to AVNA in the Bayesian NMA. Rhythm control strategies resulted significantly higher improvement of QoL than rate control strategies (mean difference [MD], -12.78; 95% CI, -21.26 to -4.31). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF was better than AAD (MD, -7.98; 95% CrI, -27.68 to 8.27), however ranked AVNA to be lowest. Ablation strategies provided significantly lower HHF than medical therapies (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.58). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF performed not only better than AAD (OR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.09 to 1.3) to reduce HHF, but also than AVNA (OR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 4.76). Of note, RCD ranked lowest with regard to mortality and HHF. Conclusions: CA of AF remains the best strategy even for the sickest group of PeAF patients with systolic HF in regards to all-cause mortality, HF-related QoL and HHF.
Authors: Karl-Heinz Kuck; Béla Merkely; Ralf Zahn; Thomas Arentz; Karlheinz Seidl; Michael Schlüter; Roland Richard Tilz; Christopher Piorkowski; László Gellér; Thomas Kleemann; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-11-25
Authors: Michael R MacDonald; Derek T Connelly; Nathaniel M Hawkins; Tracey Steedman; John Payne; Morag Shaw; Martin Denvir; Sai Bhagra; Sandy Small; William Martin; John J V McMurray; Mark C Petrie Journal: Heart Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ross J Hunter; Thomas J Berriman; Ihab Diab; Ravindu Kamdar; Laura Richmond; Victoria Baker; Farai Goromonzi; Vinit Sawhney; Edward Duncan; Stephen P Page; Waqas Ullah; Beth Unsworth; Jamil Mayet; Mehul Dhinoja; Mark J Earley; Simon Sporton; Richard J Schilling Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2014-01-01
Authors: Mario Talajic; Paul Khairy; Sylvie Levesque; Stuart J Connolly; Paul Dorian; Marc Dubuc; Peter G Guerra; Stefan H Hohnloser; Kerry L Lee; Laurent Macle; Stanley Nattel; Ole D Pedersen; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Bernard Thibault; Albert L Waldo; D George Wyse; Denis Roy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 24.094
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