Key result
Post-ablation HFA-PEFF reassessment improves long-term HF hospitalization prediction over pre-procedural scores with ~0.79 AUC.
Why the study?
The utility of post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment for long-term heart failure risk stratification after atrial fibrillation ablation remained uncertain.
Does post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment improve long-term heart failure risk stratification compared to pre-procedural assessment in patients with preserved LVEF undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Cohort (n=856)
No
Does post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment improve long-term heart failure risk stratification compared to pre-procedural assessment in patients with preserved LVEF undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.791 vs 0.686 (95% CI 0.686-0.896)
p-value: p=0.028
Post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment after atrial fibrillation ablation provides superior long-term discrimination for heart failure hospitalization compared to pre-procedural scores, particularly in patients with high baseline risk.
Post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment may improve HF hospitalization risk stratification after AF ablation; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Background The utility of post‐procedural HFA‐PEFF reassessment for long‐term heart failure (HF) risk stratification after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains uncertain. Methods In this single‐center retrospective cohort study, we evaluated pre‐procedural and post‐procedural HFA‐PEFF scores in 856 patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 50%) undergoing index AF ablation. HF hospitalization from 1 year after ablation was compared across risk strata (low, 0–1; intermediate, 2–4; high, 5–6 points) for both scores. Discrimination was assessed using time‐dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis at 2–5 years. Results Post‐procedural HFA‐PEFF was assessed at a median of 91 (interquartile range, 87–97) days after ablation, and 92.8% of reassessments were obtained during sinus rhythm or atrial pacing. The HFA‐PEFF score decreased significantly from 3 (2–4) to 2 (1–4) ( p < 0.001), driven primarily by changes in the biomarker domain. During a median follow‐up of 5.2 (3.5–7.6) years, 34 patients (4.0%) had HF hospitalization. Post‐procedural HFA‐PEFF showed higher discrimination than the pre‐procedural score, especially at 5 years (area under the curve [95% confidence interval], 0.791 [0.686–0.896] versus 0.686 [0.562–0.809]; p = 0.028). In subgroup analyses, discrimination for change‐based HFA‐PEFF improvement (Δ ≤ −1 versus Δ ≥ 0) was greater in the baseline high‐risk stratum (0.784 [0.635–0.934]) than in the low/intermediate‐risk stratum (0.647 [0.546–0.748]). Conclusions In patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing AF ablation, post‐procedural HFA‐PEFF reassessment may add value for long‐term HF hospitalization risk stratification, particularly in those with high baseline HFA‐PEFF scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishiguchi et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with preserved LVEF (≥50%) (n=856). Post-procedural HFA-PEFF score vs. Pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization from 1 year after the index procedure (AUC 0.791 vs 0.686, 95% CI 0.686-0.896, p=0.028). Post-procedural HFA-PEFF reassessment showed higher discrimination for long-term heart failure hospitalization than the pre-procedural score (AUC 0.791 vs 0.686, p=0.028).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: