Key result
Atrial rhythm control provided no significant incremental benefit over leaving patients in atrial fibrillation after CRT and AVN ablation, with similar incidences of death (1 vs 2) at 1 year.
Why the study?
Does atrial rhythm control improve functional and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and persistent AF undergoing CRT and AVN ablation?
RCT (n=52)
Does atrial rhythm control improve functional and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and persistent AF undergoing CRT and AVN ablation?
In patients with heart failure and persistent AF undergoing CRT and AV node ablation, pursuing atrial rhythm control did not improve functional or echocardiographic outcomes at 1 year and increased hospital encounters.
No benefit from atrial rhythm control after CRT/AVN ablation in persistent AF; supports accepting AF and questions routine rhythm-control efforts.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently comorbid in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and suppression is typically difficult. Herein, we sought to understand the benefit of atrial rhythm control in the setting of ventricular rate and regularity control induced by atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with heart failure, persistent AF, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <35%, and left bundle branch block underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) + AVN ablation, and were randomized to one of the following groups: (1) Atrial Rhythm Control (ARC); (2) AF. Patients were subsequently followed for up to 1 year. RESULTS: Similar numbers of patients in each group were lost to follow-up or have withdrawn (ARC two; AF three). Rhythm control in four patients in the ARC group was inadequate. Among the remaining patients, the incidence of death (ARC=1, AF=2) or left ventricular assist device +/- transplantation (ARC=2, AF=1) were similar. Among the remaining patients (ARC 16, AF 19), at 1 year, there were no significant differences in CRT response rate, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure survey score, 6-minute hall walk distance, ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurrence, or LV dimensions. A significantly higher hospital encounter rate among ARC patients was attributable to efforts to maintain uniform atrial rhythm. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, no incremental benefit for ARC was apparent. A larger study will be necessary to adequately examine these issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwartzman et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with persistent atrial fibrillation, LVEF <35%, and left bundle branch block (n=52). Atrial Rhythm Control (ARC) vs. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was evaluated on CRT response rate, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure survey score, 6-minute hall walk distance, ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurrence, or LV dimensions. Atrial rhythm control provided no significant incremental benefit over leaving patients in atrial fibrillation after CRT and AVN ablation, with similar incidences of death (1 vs 2) at 1 year.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: