Left atrial fibrosis predicts left ventricular ejection fraction response after atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: the Fibrosis-HF Study

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 1812-1821
Author(s):  
Bettina Kirstein ◽  
Sebastian Neudeck ◽  
Thomas Gaspar ◽  
Judith Piorkowski ◽  
Simon Wechselberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Atrial Fibrosis ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Left Atrial Fibrosis

Abstract Aims Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist. Catheter ablation has been reported to restore left ventricular (LV) function but patients benefit differently. This study investigated the correlation between left atrial (LA) fibrosis extent and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after AF ablation. Methods and results In this study, 103 patients [64 years, 69% men, 79% persistent AF, LVEF 33% interquartile range (IQR) (25–38)] undergoing first time AF ablation were investigated. Identification of LA fibrosis and selection of ablation strategy were based on sinus rhythm voltage mapping. Continuous rhythm monitoring was used to assess ablation success. Improvement in post-ablation LVEF was measured as primary study endpoint. An absolute increase in post-ablation LVEF ≥10% was defined as ‘Super Response’. Left atrial fibrosis was present in 38% of patients. After ablation LVEF increased by absolute 15% (IQR 6–25) (P < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction improvement was higher in patients without LA fibrosis [15% (IQR 10–25) vs. 10% (IQR 0–20), P < 0.001]. An inverse correlation between LVEF improvement and the extent of LA fibrosis was found (R2 = 0.931). In multivariate analysis, the presence of LA fibrosis was the only independent predictor for failing LVEF improvement [odds ratio 7.2 (95% confidence interval 2.2–23.4), P < 0.001]. Echocardiographic ‘Super Response’ was observed in 55/64 (86%) patients without and 21/39 (54%) patients with LA fibrosis, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusion Presence and extent of LA fibrosis predict LVEF response in HF patients undergoing AF ablation. The assessment of LA fibrosis may impact prognostic stratification and clinical management in HF patients with AF.

Abstract 2156: Left Atrial Fibrosis Impacts Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazem W Akoum ◽  
Robert S Oakes ◽  
Yaw Adjei-Poku ◽  
Suman Kuppahally ◽  
Nathan M Segerson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Posterior Wall ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Lv Function ◽  
Atrial Fibrosis ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Average Improvement ◽  
Left Atrial Fibrosis

Background. The extent of left atrial (LA) wall fibrosis detected by delayed enhancement MRI (DE-MRI) appears to be correlated with advanced atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the effect of LA fibrosis on left ventricular function (LVEF) is not well understood. We report the relationship between left atrial fibrosis and LVEF in patients with AF. Methods. Sixty-seven patients underwent DE-MRI and 2-dimensional trans-thoracic echocardiography prior to ablation for AF. Three dimensional segmentation of the LA was performed and the extent of fibrosis was quantified using a semi-automated algorithm. Patients were assigned to one of three groups based on the degree of LA fibrosis; 1) mild enhancement where the fibrosis < 15% of the LA wall, 2) moderate enhancement where fibrosis > 15% and < 35%, and extensive where fibrosis > 35% of the LA wall. LVEF was determined both prior to and 3 months following pulmonary vein antrum isolation with posterior wall and septal debulking. Results. The average pre-ablation LVEF among patients with mild fibrosis was 53.2% ± 9.9% (n = 41), 52.3% ± 7.4% (n = 19) among patients with moderate fibrosis and 42.1% ± 9.9% (n = 7) among those with extensive enhancement (p = 0.01,one way ANOVA). The difference remains significant after controlling for patient age, gender, hypertension, MI, AF type, mitral valve regurgitation, CAD and the presence of non-AF related CHF. Following ablation, all groups had an increase in the LVEF. The greatest increase occurred among patients in the extensive group. On average, this group experienced an overall improvement of 10.8% ± 14.1%. Patients in the mild enhancement group had an average improvement of 3.3% ± 11.1% and those in the moderate group had an average improvement of 3.8% ± 5.6%. The post-ablation LVEF among patients with mild fibrosis was 56.6% ± 8.3%, 56.2% ± 6.4% among patients with moderate fibrosis and 53.0% ± 15.4% among patients with extensive fibrosis. Conclusion. From our preliminary experience with DE-MRI fibrosis detection, patients with extensive LA fibrosis appear to have depressed LV function pre-ablation. This group of patients seems to experience a large improvement (~11%) in LV function post-ablation compared to patients with less LA fibrosis.

scholarly journals Prognostic value of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and different left ventricular ejection fraction: results of the multicenter RIF-CHF register

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 4200
Author(s):  
I. V. Zhirov ◽  
N. V. Safronova ◽  
Yu. F. Osmolovskaya ◽  
S. N. Тereschenko
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Increased Risk

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are the most common cardiovascular conditions in clinical practice and frequently coexist. The number of patients with HF and AF is increasing every year.Aim. To analyze the effect of clinical course and management of HF and AF on the outcomes.Material and methods. The data of 1,003 patients from the first Russian register of patients with HF and AF (RIF-CHF) were analyzed. The endpoints included hospitalization due to decompensated HF, cardiovascular mortality, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding. Predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (AF+HFpEF), mid-range ejection fraction (AF+HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (AF+HFrEF).Results. Among all patients with HF, 39% had HFpEF, 15% — HFmrEF, and 46% — HFrEF. A total of 57,2% of patients were rehospitalized due to decompensated HF within one year. Hospitalization risk was the highest for HFmrEF patients (66%, p=0,017). Reduced ejection fraction was associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (15,5% vs 5,4% in other groups, p<0,001) but not ischemic stroke (2,4% vs 3%, p=0,776). Patients with HFpEF had lower risk to achieve the composite endpoint (stroke+MI+cardiovascular death) as compared to patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF (12,7% vs 22% and 25,5%, p<0,001). Regression logistic analysis revealed that factors such as demographic characteristics, disease severity, and selected therapy had different effects on the risk of unfavorable outcomes depending on ejection fraction group.Conclusion. Each group of patients with different ejection fractions is characterized by its own pattern of factors associated with unfavorable outcomes. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with mid-range ejection fraction demonstrate that these patients need to be studied as a separate cohort.

scholarly journals Early Rhythm Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Rillig ◽  
Christina Magnussen ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Ozga ◽  
Anna Suling ◽  
Axel Brandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Control Therapy

Background: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST - AFNET 4 trial assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared to usual care (UC, allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the two primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. Results: This analysis included 798 patients (300 (37.6%) female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had HFpEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61% ± 6.3%), the others had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF40-49%; mean LVEF 44% ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31% ± 5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomized to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomized to UC (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.74 [0.56-0.97], p=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction p-value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71/396 (17.9%) heart failure patients randomized to ERC and in 87/402 (21.6%) heart failure patients randomized to UC (hazard ratio 0.85 [0.62-1.17], p=0.33). LV ejection fraction improved in both groups (LVEF change at two years: ERC 5.3%±11.6%, UC 4.9%±11.6%, p=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. Conclusions: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within one year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifiers: ISRCTN04708680, NCT01288352, EudraCT2010-021258-20, Study web site www.easttrial.org; URLs: www.controlled-trials.com; https://clinicaltrials.gov; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu

Atrial function discriminates paroxysmal AF patients with HFpEF from those without HFpEF: subanalysis from AF-RISK study

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Artola ◽  
B Santema ◽  
R De With ◽  
B Nguyen ◽  
D Linz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Atrial Function ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Right Atria

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie. Grant support from the Dutch Heart Foundation [NHS2010B233] Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are two cardiovascular conditions that often coexist. Overlapping symptoms, biomarker profile, and echocardiographic changes hinder the diagnosis of underlying HFpEF in patients with AF and suggest that both conditions might reflect similar remodelling processes in the heart. Purpose. To assess cardiac remodelling in AF patients with versus without concomitant HFpEF by transthoracic echocardiography, focusing on atrial dimension and strain. Methods. We selected 120 patients included in AF-RISK, a prospective, observational, multicentre study aiming to identify a risk profile to guide atrial fibrillation therapy study. Patients had paroxysmal AF diagnosed within three years before inclusion, had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% and were in sinus rhythm at the moment of performing echocardiography and blood sampling. Patients were matched by nearest neighbour by age and sex with a 1:1 ratio and were classified into two groups: 1) AF with HFpEF (n = 60) and 2) AF without HFpEF (n = 60). The diagnosis of HFpEF was based on the 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines, including symptoms and signs of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥125pg/ml, and one of the following echocardiographic measures: left atrium volume index (LAVI) &gt;34ml/m2, left ventricular mass index ≥115g/m2 for men and ≥95g/m2 for women, average E/e’ ≥13cm/s and average e’ &lt;9cm/s. Measurements of reservoir, conduit and contraction strain of both atria were performed in apical four-chamber by echocardiography (GE, EchoPac BT12). Associations of clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were tested for collinearity by multivariable logistic regression analyses. LAVI, LV mass index and NT-proBNP were excluded from multivariable analysis since these markers were part of the HFpEF diagnostic criteria. Results. Patients with paroxysmal AF and concomitant HFpEF had more often hypertension (72% vs. 45%, P = 0.005), had more impaired strain phases of both the left and right atria (figure 1), had comparable LVEF and global longitudinal strain (GLS) (P = 0.168 and P = 0.212, respectively). In a model adjusted for the number of comorbidities and sex, LA contraction decrease was associated with presence of HFpEF (odds ratio per 1% LA contraction-percent was 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.87–0.99, P = 0.042). LA contraction was not explained by LAVI in patients with concomitant HFpEF (Spearman’s rho= -0.07, P = 0.08). Conclusion. Our results show that atrial function may differentiate paroxysmal AF patients with HFpEF from those without HFpEF. In patients with paroxysmal AF, more impaired strain phases of the left and right atria were associated with concomitant HFpEF, whereas ventricular function, reflected by LVEF and GLS, did not differ. Abstract Figure. Strain distribution of both atria

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document