Open AccessCatheter ablation versus medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure
Author(s) -
Min Zhu,
Xinbin Zhou,
Hongwen Cai,
Zhijun Wang,
Huimin Xu,
Shenjie Chen,
Jie Chen,
Xiaoming Xu,
Haidong Xu,
Wei Mao
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.59
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1536-5964
pISSN - 0025-7974
DOI - 10.1097/md.0000000000004377
Subject(s) - medicine , ejection fraction , cardiology , heart failure , atrial fibrillation , sinus rhythm , clinical endpoint , catheter ablation , confidence interval , natriuretic peptide , randomized controlled trial
Background: The effectiveness of restoring the sinus rhythm by catheter ablation relative to that of medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) remains to be defined. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles that compared the outcomes of interest between catheter ablation and medical rate control therapy in persistent AF patients with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The primary endpoint was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following catheter ablation or medical rate control therapy relative to baseline. Other endpoints included changes in cardiac function and exercise capacity, including the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, the brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, the peak oxygen consumption (peak VO 2 ), the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 143 patients were included. At the overall term follow-up, catheter ablation significantly improved the LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 6.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7–11.74, P = 0.03) and peak VO 2 (MD: 2.81 mL/kg/min; 95% CI: 0.78–4.85, P = 0.007) and reduced the NYHA class (MD: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.59–1.21, P < 0.001) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaires (MLHFQ) scores (MD: −11.05; 95% CI: −19.45 — −2.66, P = 0.01) compared with the medical rate control for persistent AF patients with HF. Alterations in parameters, such as the BNP level, 6MWT, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire scores also revealed trends that favored catheter ablation therapy, although these differences were not significant. Conclusion: Catheter ablation resulted in improved LVEF, cardiac function, exercise capacity, and QOL for persistent AF patients with HF compared with the medical rate control strategy.