Key result
In patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, the presence of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy did not significantly affect AF recurrence compared to those without AiCM (30.83% vs 27.77%; P=0.392).
Why the study?
Clinical and biochemical characteristics and long-term catheter ablation outcomes in AF patients who develop arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy were not well defined.
What are the predictors of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, and does catheter ablation yield similar AF recurrence rates in patients with versus without AiCM?
Cohort (n=769)
Yes
What are the predictors of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, and does catheter ablation yield similar AF recurrence rates in patients with versus without AiCM?
Absolute Event Rate: 30.83% vs 27.77%
p-value: p=0.392
Catheter ablation in patients with arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy results in significant LVEF improvement and similar long-term AF recurrence rates compared to patients without the condition.
AiCM patients show LVEF recovery after ablation with similar recurrence rates; supports targeted rhythm control but leaves open randomized confirmation.
AIMS: This study aims to investigate the clinical and biochemical characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) referred for ablation who develop arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM) as well as their long-term outcomes after catheter ablation (CA). METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective multicentre study was conducted on consecutive AF patients who underwent CA. AiCM was defined as the development of heart failure in the presence of AF and an improvement of left ventricular fraction by at least 10% at 6 months after ablation. A subgroup of patients underwent peripheral and left atrial blood samples [galectin-3, fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4), and soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE)] at the time of the procedure. Of the 769 patients who underwent AF ablation, 135 (17.56%) met the criteria for AiCM. Independent predictors of AiCM included persistent AF, male gender, left atrial volume, QRS width, active smoking, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Biomarker analysis revealed that sRAGE, FABP4, and galectin-3 levels were not predictive of AiCM development nor did they differ between groups or predict recurrence. There were no differences in AF recurrence between patients with and without AiCM (30.83% vs. 27.77%; P = 0.392) during a median follow-up of 23.83 months (inter-quartile range 9-36). CONCLUSIONS: In the subset of patients referred for AF ablation, the development of AiCM was associated with persistent AF and CKD. Biomarker analysis was not different between groups nor predicted recurrence. Patients with AiCM benefited from ablation, with a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and similar AF recurrence rates to those without AiCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrero et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=769). Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM) vs. No AiCM was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation recurrence (p=0.392). In patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, the presence of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy did not significantly affect AF recurrence compared to those without AiCM (30.83% vs 27.77%; P=0.392).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: