Key result
Catheter ablation improves QoL and reduces CV hospitalization ~22% vs. AADs in AF with HFpEF.
Why the study?
Patients with AF often complain of dyspnea, raising the question that symptoms could be related to unrecognized HFpEF.
Does catheter ablation improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations in atrial fibrillation patients with potentially undiagnosed HFpEF compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy?
Does catheter ablation improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations in atrial fibrillation patients with potentially undiagnosed HFpEF compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy?
Nearly 75% of AF patients without known HF may have undiagnosed HFpEF; catheter ablation significantly improves their quality of life and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations, though residual HF risk remains.
Supports ablation over antiarrhythmics for QoL and CV hospitalizations in probable HFpEF-AF; challenges consensus favoring medical therapy.
Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often complain of dyspnea, raising the question that symptoms could be related to unrecognized heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We used the HFpEF‐age, body mass index and history of AF algorithm to estimate the probability of undiagnosed HFpEF in CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy), and its interaction with catheter ablation on quality of life (QOL). Probable HFpEF was defined as patient‐reported dyspnea with HFpEF‐age, body mass index and history of AF probability≥75%. Absence of dyspnea or HFpEF‐age, body mass index and history of AF probability<75% was considered to reflect patients without HFpEF. The effect of randomization to catheter ablation on QOL (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation‐Specific Symptom Inventory questionnaire and EuroQol‐5 Dimension‐3 Level score) was assessed using mixed models. Results Of participants without known HF, 70% (n=1225) had probable HFpEF and the remaining 30% (n=522) did not. Those with probable HFpEF had worse New York Heart Association class, EuroQol‐5 Dimension‐3 Level score, Mayo Atrial Fibrillation‐Specific Symptom Inventory severity, and Mayo Atrial Fibrillation‐Specific Symptom Inventory frequency scores ( P <0.0001 for all), with higher risk of HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19 [95% CI, 1.11–4.31], P =0.01). Ablation resulted in greater improvement in EuroQol‐5 Dimension‐3 Level and Mayo Atrial Fibrillation‐Specific Symptom Inventory severity/frequency scores in probable HFpEF (interactions P =0.005, P =0.05, and P =0.04 respectively). In probable HFpEF, catheter ablation was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66–0.92], P =0.003, interaction P =0.03) but not HF hospitalization (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.55–1.64], P =0.84). Conclusions Nearly three quarters of CABANA participants had potentially undiagnosed HFpEF, with worse QOL and risk of HF hospitalization. Catheter ablation in probable HFpEF resulted in greater improvement in QOL, but residual QOL impairment and HF risk remained elevated despite ablation. These data reinforce the importance of diligent consideration of HFpEF among patients with symptomatic AF to ensure optimal use of foundational treatments for HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reddy et al. (2026) studied this question. Catheter ablation in probable HFpEF patients with AF improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular hospitalization risk (HR 0.78, P=0.003) despite high HF burden.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: