University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO.
Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Aug 11;6(8):e005273. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005273.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction frequently coexist. The AATAC (Ablation versus Amiodarone for Treatment of persistent Atrial fibrillation in patients with Congestive heart failure and an implantable device) trial suggests that catheter ablation may benefit these patients. However, applicability to contemporary ambulatory cardiology practice is unknown.
Using the outpatient National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry, we identified participants meeting AATAC enrollment criteria between 2013 and 2014. Treatment with medications and procedures was assessed at registry inclusion. From 164 166 patients with AF and heart failure, 8483 (7%) patients potentially met AATAC inclusion criteria. Eligible subjects, compared to AATAC trial participants, were older (mean age, 71.2±11.4 years) and had greater comorbidity (coronary artery disease 79.2%, hypertension 82.4%, and diabetes mellitus 31.8%). AF was predominantly paroxysmal (65.5%), rather than persistent/permanent (16.7%) or new onset (17.8%), whereas all patients in the AATAC trial had persistent AF. Commonly used atrioventricular-nodal blocking agents were carvedilol (71.2%), digoxin (31.9%), and metoprolol (27.1%). Rhythm control with anti-arrhythmic drugs was reported in 29.0% of AATAC eligible patients (predominantly amiodarone [24.6%]) and 9.3% had undergone catheter ablation. Patients who underwent ablation were more likely to be younger and have less comorbidities than those who did not.
Among the contemporary ambulatory AF/heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population, treatment is predominantly rate control with few catheter ablations. Application of AATAC findings has the potential to markedly increase the use of catheter ablation in this population, although significant differences in clinical profiles might influence ablation outcomes in practice.
心房颤动(AF)和射血分数降低的心力衰竭常同时存在。AATAC(消融与胺碘酮治疗充血性心力衰竭伴植入装置的持续性心房颤动患者)试验表明,导管消融可能使这些患者受益。然而,其在当代门诊心脏病学实践中的适用性尚不清楚。
利用门诊国家心血管数据登记处实践创新和临床卓越登记处,我们确定了 2013 年至 2014 年间符合 AATAC 入选标准的参与者。在登记时评估药物和程序的治疗情况。在 164166 例有 AF 和心力衰竭的患者中,8483 例(7%)患者可能符合 AATAC 入选标准。与 AATAC 试验参与者相比,合格的受试者年龄更大(平均年龄 71.2±11.4 岁),合并症更多(冠心病 79.2%,高血压 82.4%,糖尿病 31.8%)。AF 主要为阵发性(65.5%),而非持续性/永久性(16.7%)或新发(17.8%),而 AATAC 试验中的所有患者均为持续性 AF。常用的房室结阻滞剂为卡维地洛(71.2%)、地高辛(31.9%)和美托洛尔(27.1%)。抗心律失常药物的节律控制在 29.0%的 AATAC 合格患者中报告(主要为胺碘酮[24.6%]),9.3%的患者接受了导管消融。接受消融治疗的患者比未接受消融治疗的患者年龄更小,合并症更少。
在当代门诊 AF/射血分数降低的心力衰竭人群中,治疗主要是控制心率,很少进行导管消融。应用 AATAC 研究结果有可能显著增加该人群中导管消融的应用,尽管临床特征的显著差异可能会影响实践中的消融结果。