Premium
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in HFpEF patients—A propensity‐score‐matched analysis
Author(s) -
Rattka Manuel,
Kühberger Anna,
Pott Alexander,
Stephan Tilman,
Weinmann Karolina,
Baumhardt Michael,
Aktolga Deniz,
Teumer Yannick,
Bothner Carlo,
Scharnbeck Dominik,
Rottbauer Wolfgang,
Dahme Tillman
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.15200
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , cardiology , heart failure with preserved ejection fraction , heart failure , catheter ablation , hazard ratio , propensity score matching , ejection fraction , ablation , clinical endpoint , confidence interval , randomized controlled trial
Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are both common conditions associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially if they coexist. Catheter ablation (CA) for AF has been shown recently to induce reverse remodeling and improve symptoms in HFpEF patients. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of AF patients with HFpEF, who either underwent CA for AF or received medical therapy only. Methods and Results We included all AF patients with HFpEF according to current guidelines treated at our hospital between 2013 and 2018. Out of 6614 AF patients, we identified 127 with confirmed HFpEF. After applying propensity score matching to balance patient groups, 43 patients treated by CA and 43 patients receiving medical treatment were compared. Patients in the CA group underwent a mean of 1.5 ± 0.8 ablation procedures. Arrhythmia recurrence occurred significantly less frequently in the CA group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25–0.87; p = .016). The primary endpoint, a composite of heart failure hospitalization and death, was reduced significantly by CA compared to medical therapy (HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.13–0.67; p = .003). This was driven by a decrease in heart failure hospitalization. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters of HFpEF improved significantly only after CA. Remarkably, reassessment of diagnostic HFpEF criteria at the end of follow‐up demonstrated HFpEF resolution in 15 out of 43 patients (35%) treated by CA and only 4 out of 43 patients (9%) treated medically ( p = .008). Conclusion Catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF patients in comparison to medical therapy decreases heart failure hospitalization, heart failure symptoms, and improves diastolic function. AF ablation should be considered in patients with HFpEF and concomitant AF.