Janis M. Haroldson

Long-Term Quality of Life After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation The Impact of Recurrence, Symptom Relief, and Placebo Effect

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine the relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation efficacy, quality of life (QoL), and AF-specific symptoms at 2 years. BACKGROUND Although the primary goal of AF ablation is QoL improvement, this effect has yet to be demonstrated in the long term. METHODS A total of 502 symptomatic AF ablation recipients were prospectively followed for recurrence, QoL, and AF symptoms. RESULTS In 323 patients with 2 years of follow-up, 72% achieved AF elimination off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), 15% achieved AF control with AADs, and 13% had recurrent AF. The physical component summary scores of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 increased from 58.8 +/- 20.1 to 76.2 +/- 19.2 (p < 0.001) and the mental component summary scores of the Short Form 36 increased from 65.3 +/- 18.6 to 79.8 +/- 15.8 (p < 0.001). Post-ablation QoL improvements were noted across ablation outcomes, including recurrent AF (change in physical component summary: 12.1 +/- 19.7 and change in mental component summary: 9.7 +/- 17.9), with no significant differences in QoL improvement across 3 ablative efficacy outcomes. However, in 103 patients who completed additional assessment with Mayo AF Symptom Inventories (on a scale of 0 to 48), those with AF elimination off AADs had a change in AF symptom frequency score of -9.5 +/- 6.3, which was significantly higher than those with AF controlled with AADs (-5.6 +/- 3.8, p = 0.03) or those with recurrent AF (-3.4 +/- 8.4, p = 0.02). Independent predictors of limited QoL improvement included higher baseline QoL, obesity, and warfarin use at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AF ablation produces sustained QoL improvement at 2 years in patients with and without recurrence. AF-specific symptom assessment more accurately reflects ablative efficacy.

Success of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction: A Comparison to Systolic Dysfunction and Normal Ventricular Function

Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls ( P =0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls ( P =0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P =0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P =0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ⩽40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls (P=0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls (P=0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P=0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P=0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.

Substrate and Procedural Predictors of Outcomes After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is often accompanied by atrial fibrillation (AF) due to diastolic dysfunction, elevated left atrial pressure, and enlargement. Although catheter ablation for drug‐refractory AF is an effective treatment, the efficacy in HCM remains to be established.

Effect of Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Flutter on the Natural History of Subsequent Atrial Arrhythmias

Introduction: Patients with atrial flutter (AFL) treated medically are at high risk for subsequent development of atrial fibrillation (AF). Whether curative radiofrequency ablation of AFL can modify the natural history of arrhythmia progression is not clear. We aimed to determine whether ablation of AFL decreases the subsequent development of AF in patients without previous AF.

Success of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Left Ventricular Diastolic DysfunctionClinical Perspective: A Comparison to Systolic Dysfunction and Normal Ventricular Function

Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls ( P =0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls ( P =0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P =0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P =0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ⩽40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls (P=0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls (P=0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P=0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P=0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.

Success of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Left Ventricular Diastolic DysfunctionClinical Perspective

Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls ( P =0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls ( P =0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P =0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P =0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.Background— The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results— A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ⩽40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls (P=0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls (P=0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P=0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P=0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions— Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.