FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4281738772> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4281738772 endingPage "1707" @default.
• W4281738772 startingPage "1705" @default.
• W4281738772 abstract "HomeCirculationVol. 145, No. 23Evidence Builds for Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBEvidence Builds for Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure Sean D. Pokorney, MD, MBA and Christopher B. Granger, MD Sean D. PokorneySean D. Pokorney https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4345-0816 Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. Search for more papers by this author and Christopher B. GrangerChristopher B. Granger Correspondence to: Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology, DUMC 3409, Durham, NC 27710. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-3291 Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. Search for more papers by this author Originally published6 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059885Circulation. 2022;145:1705–1707This article is a commentary on the followingRandomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trialArticle, see p 1693Traditionally, the rationale for rhythm control for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been focused on quality of life.1 More recently, the EAST-AFNET 4 clinical trial (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) demonstrated a reduction in the composite of death resulting from cardiovascular cause, stroke, or hospitalization with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome with early rhythm control.2 Management of AF in patients with concomitant heart failure requires additional considerations relative to the general population. Meta-analysis data of >50 000 patients have demonstrated that in patients with heart failure, AF is associated with 40% higher odds of death among patients included in randomized trials and 14% higher odds of death in patients in observational studies.3 The antiarrhythmic medication options in patients with heart failure are limited. Historically, catheter ablation for AF has been shown to be more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs at maintaining sinus rhythm, including in patients with heart failure, but had not been shown to improve clinical outcomes.4,5 A series of more recent clinical trials now provides a growing body of evidence to change that, in particular for patients with heart failure, although no single trial has been conclusive.5–8 Thus, any additional randomized data comparing the clinical impact of ablation to control in patients with heart failure are welcome.Catheter ablation received a Class IIb (Level of Evidence B, randomized)1 in the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for AF in selected patients with symptomatic AF and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) “to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure.” It received a Class IIa (Level of Evidence B) recommendation in the 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for AF,9 which stated that “ablation should be considered in patients with HFrEF who have been selected for rhythm control treatment to improve quality of life and LV [left ventricular] function, and to reduce heart failure hospitalization and, potentially, mortality.” The 2022 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guideline for the management of heart failure10 provides a Class IIa recommendation for catheter ablation for patients with heart failure and symptoms caused by AF “to improve symptoms and quality of life.”The recent evidence the guidelines cite suggesting a benefit of catheter ablation on clinical outcomes came from 2 randomized trials, AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted ICD/CRTD; 203 patients) and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure; 363 patients),5,6 of selected patients with AF and HFrEF and implanted defibrillators. Although AATAC found lower rates of death and hospitalization as secondary outcomes, CASTLE-AF was designed to assess the effect on death or hospitalization for heart failure with 3 years of follow-up and found a 38% relative risk reduction. Limitations to CASTLE-AF include failure to reach the target sample size, low power with only 133 primary outcome events, and omission of a substantial portion of patients from the primary analysis attributable to exclusions and loss to follow-up.6 Therefore, in aggregate, these trials should be interpreted as providing modest evidence for benefit on clinical outcomes, as reflected in the guidelines.Investigators of the largest randomized trial of ablation versus medical therapy, CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation),4 reported a prespecified subgroup analysis of 778 (of the 2204 total) patients with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II or greater) at baseline, showing a significant reduction in the primary composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, as well as a reduction in mortality.11 Although supportive of a treatment benefit of catheter ablation with heart failure, this was a subgroup analysis of a trial not showing a significant reduction in its primary outcome, without a significant subgroup-by-treatment interaction. This included HFrEF and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with most patients in this analysis having an ejection fraction >40%.In this issue of Circulation, Parkash et al12 report the results of the RAFT-AF trial (Randomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation). In this modest-sized randomized trial, 411 patients with high-burden paroxysmal or persistent AF, symptomatic heart failure (60% with ejection fraction ≤45%), and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) were randomized to catheter ablation or rate control. The trial was stopped early on recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee, which made the determination of futility. Enrollment was slower than expected, and the Data Monitoring Committee, at the interim analysis in September 2017, found a trend for worse outcome with catheter ablation (hazard ratio for confirmed primary outcome events, 1.32) and calculated a 19% probability of a statistically significant improvement if the trial were completed with the originally hypothesized treatment effect in the remaining patients. This met the prespecified criteria for futility. However, the final results found the opposite of what was seen in the interim analysis: There was a modest, nonsignificant benefit (50 versus 64 primary events of mortality or heart failure events) with ablation, representing a 29% relative risk reduction that did not reach statistical significance (P=0.066). The secondary outcomes (change in ejection fraction, 6-minute walk distance, and change in NT-proBNP) all favored ablation. It is unfortunate that the trial was not completed as planned to the original sample size of 1000 patients13 or to the subsequent planned sample size of 600 patients. This trial provides an important cautionary tale to Data Monitoring committees about the risk of early termination of trials for futility. Trials are generally designed to need the entire sample size and planned events to reliably estimate modest treatment effects, and interim data can be unreliable to estimate final results. An example is the ISIS-2 trial (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) in which deaths with aspirin versus placebo were roughly even after 350 (of the final 1800) deaths, a finding that might have led to a determination of futility and prevented completion of one of the most important trials ever conducted.14Nevertheless, even before the RAFT-AF trial results, evidence was building for a benefit of catheter ablation for patients with AF. A meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials assessing catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medication for first-line therapy of paroxysmal AF (without heart failure) found that among 1212 patients, ablation was associated with a 38% relative risk reduction in AF burden relative to antiarrhythmic medications (32.3% recurrence with ablation versus 53% recurrence with antiarrhythmic medications; P<0.001).15 Thus, 5 patients would need to be treated with ablation instead of antiarrhythmic medication to prevent 1 patient from having arrhythmia recurrence. Coupled with improved safety and emerging evidence of improved clinical outcomes and quality of life, this has caused a shift toward more patients with paroxysmal AF having ablation early in their clinical course of AF.With modest evidence for clinical benefit in relatively small trials of patients with heart failure, considerable uncertainty remains as to which patients within the heart failure population will derive clear benefit from catheter ablation. For example, patients with a component of their cardiomyopathy that is tachycardia mediated appear to have greater benefit from catheter ablation, which is why these patients have a Class I recommendation for ablation in the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for AF.9 Subgroup analyses from CASTLE-AF found that patients with less severe heart failure symptoms—class I and II compared with class III and IV symptoms—appeared to have a greater reduction in the primary outcome with ablation (Pinteraction=0.028).16 Patients in the CAMERA-MRI study (Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure—An MRI-Guided Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial) with left ventricular scar on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging tended to have less improvement in their ejection fraction after ablation relative to patients without left ventricular scar.7 More studies are needed to better understand the optimal heart failure population for ablation.In addition to the trials suggesting benefit on clinical outcomes, several clinical trials have demonstrated improvement in ejection fraction and lower recurrence of AF among patients with HFrEF. Although RAFT-AF would have been much more valuable if had been carried to completion, it adds to the growing evidence that for patients with heart failure, especially those with reduced ejection fraction, catheter ablation appears to have meaningful clinical benefit.Article InformationSources of FundingNone.Disclosures Dr Pokorney reports consulting/advisory board fees from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific, and Sanofi, as well as research support from Boston Scientific and Sanofi. Dr Granger reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Inc, and Boston Scientific, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Philips.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 1707.https://www.ahajournals.org/journal/circCorrespondence to: Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology, DUMC 3409, Durham, NC 27710. Email [email protected]duke.eduReferences1. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, Chen LY, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC, Ellinor PT, Ezekowitz MD, Field ME, Furie KL, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.Circulation. 2019; 140:e125–e151. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665LinkGoogle Scholar2. Kirchhof P, Camm AJ, Goette A, Brandes A, Eckardt L, Elvan A, Fetsch T, van Gelder IC, Haase D, Haegeli LM, et al; EAST-AFNET 4 Trial Investigators. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 2020; 383:1305–1316. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Mamas MA, Caldwell JC, Chacko S, Garratt CJ, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Neyses L. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure.Eur J Heart Fail. 2009; 11:676–683. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp085CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA, Monahan KH, Bahnson TD, Poole JE, Noseworthy PA, Rosenberg YD, Jeffries N, Mitchell LB, et al; CABANA Investigators. Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2019; 321:1261–1274. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0693CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Di Biase L, Mohanty P, Mohanty S, Santangeli P, Trivedi C, Lakkireddy D, Reddy M, Jais P, Themistoclakis S, Dello Russo A, et al. Ablation versus amiodarone for treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure and an implanted device: results from the AATAC multicenter randomized trial.Circulation. 2016; 133:1637–1644. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019406LinkGoogle Scholar6. Marrouche NF, Kheirkhahan M, Brachmann J. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:492. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707855MedlineGoogle Scholar7. Prabhu S, Taylor AJ, Costello BT, Kaye DM, McLellan AJA, Voskoboinik A, Sugumar H, Lockwood SM, Stokes MB, Pathik B, et al. Catheter ablation versus medical rate control in atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction: the CAMERA-MRI study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70:1949–1961. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.041CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Kuck KH, Merkely B, Zahn R, Arentz T, Seidl K, Schluter M, Tilz RR, Piorkowski C, Geller L, Kleemann T, et al. Catheter ablation versus best medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure: the randomized AMICA trial.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019; 12:e007731. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731LinkGoogle Scholar9. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Boriani G, Castella M, Dan GA, Dilaveris PE, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J. 2021; 42:373–498. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, Deswal A, Drazner MH, Dunlay SM, Evers LR, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation. 2022; 145:e895–e1032. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063LinkGoogle Scholar11. Packer DL, Piccini JP, Monahan KH, Al-Khalidi HR, Silverstein AP, Noseworthy PA, Poole JE, Bahnson TD, Lee KL, Mark DB; CABANA Investigators. Ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation in heart failure: results from the CABANA trial.Circulation. 2021; 143:1377–1390. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050991LinkGoogle Scholar12. Parkash R, Wells GA, Rouleau J, Talajic M, Essebag V, Skanes A, Wilton SB, Verma A, Healey JS, Sterns L, et al. Randomized ablation-based rhythm-control versus rate-control trial in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation: results from the RAFT-AF trial.Circulation. 2022; 145:1693–1704. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057095LinkGoogle Scholar13. Parkash R, Wells G, Rouleau J, Talajic M, Essebag V, Skanes A, Wilton SB, Verma A, Healey JS, Tang AS, et al. A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation: the RAFT-AF trial rationale and design.Am Heart J. 2021; 234:90–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2021.01.012CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2: ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.Lancet. 1988; 2:349–360.MedlineGoogle Scholar15. Turagam MK, Musikantow D, Whang W, Koruth JS, Miller MA, Langan MN, Sofi A, Choudry S, Dukkipati SR, Reddy VY, et al. Assessment of catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs for first-line therapy of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.JAMA Cardiol. 2021; 6:697–705. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0852CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Sohns C, Zintl K, Zhao Y, Dagher L, Andresen D, Siebels J, Wegscheider K, Sehner S, Boersma L, Merkely B, et al. Impact of left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms on outcomes post ablation of atrial fibrillation in heart failure: CASTLE-AF trial.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020; 13:e008461. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008461LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesRandomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trialRatika Parkash, et al. Circulation. 2022;145:1693-1704 June 7, 2022Vol 145, Issue 23 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059885PMID: 35858115 Originally publishedJune 6, 2022 Keywordsatrial fibrillationheart failureEditorialsPDF download Advertisement SubjectsAtrial FibrillationCatheter Ablation and Implantable Cardioverter-DefibrillatorHeart Failure" @default.
• W4281738772 created "2022-06-13" @default.
• W4281738772 creator A5012148455 @default.
• W4281738772 creator A5014449865 @default.
• W4281738772 date "2022-06-07" @default.
• W4281738772 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W4281738772 title "Evidence Builds for Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure" @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2023008577 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2333399234 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2747726107 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2920804236 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2957544571 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W2991235505 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3082188176 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3082794714 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3084365879 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3124879323 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3126419005 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W3158186502 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W4220962295 @default.
• W4281738772 cites W4225396975 @default.
• W4281738772 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.122.059885" @default.
• W4281738772 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35858115" @default.
• W4281738772 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4281738772 type Work @default.
• W4281738772 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4281738772 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4281738772 hasAuthorship W4281738772A5012148455 @default.
• W4281738772 hasAuthorship W4281738772A5014449865 @default.
• W4281738772 hasBestOaLocation W42817387721 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C2776131983 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C2778902805 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C2779161974 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C2781267111 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C126322002 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C141071460 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C164705383 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C2776131983 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C2778198053 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C2778902805 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C2779161974 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C2781267111 @default.
• W4281738772 hasConceptScore W4281738772C71924100 @default.
• W4281738772 hasIssue "23" @default.
• W4281738772 hasLocation W42817387721 @default.
• W4281738772 hasLocation W42817387722 @default.
• W4281738772 hasOpenAccess W4281738772 @default.
• W4281738772 hasPrimaryLocation W42817387721 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W1483882493 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2094486097 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2324625686 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2330651661 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2348720246 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2365785721 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2583047656 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W2997443537 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W3185375041 @default.
• W4281738772 hasRelatedWork W4315797504 @default.
• W4281738772 hasVolume "145" @default.
• W4281738772 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4281738772 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4281738772 workType "article" @default.