University Heart Center Lübeck, Medical Clinic II (Cardiology/Angiology/Intensive Care Medicine), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Vivantes Klinika Am Urban und im Friedrichshain und Universitäres Herzzentrum Rostock, Berlin, Germany.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Jul;108(7):815-823. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01411-3. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, but data on the prognostic value of differing ablation strategies according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are rare.
From January 2007 until January 2010, 728 patients with HF were enrolled in the multi-center German ablation registry prior to AF catheter ablation. Patients were divided into three groups according to LVEF: HF with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%, HFpEF, n = 333), mid-range LVEF (40-49%, HFmrEF, n = 207), and reduced LVEF (< 40%, HFrEF, n = 188). Ablation strategies differed significantly between the three groups with the majority of patients with HFpEF (83.4%) and HFmrEF (78.4%) undergoing circumferential pulmonary vein isolation vs. 48.9% of patients with HFrEF. The latter underwent ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in 47.3%. Major complications did not differ between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a significant mortality increase in patients with HFrEF (6.1% in HFrEF vs. 1.5% in HFmrEF vs. 1.9% in HFpEF, p = 0.009) that was limited to patients undergoing ablation of the AV node.
Catheter ablation strategies differ significantly in patients with HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. In almost 50% of patients with HFrEF AV-node ablation was performed, going along with a significant increase in mortality rate. These results should raise efforts to further evaluate the prognostic effect of ablation strategies in HF patients.
心力衰竭(HF)和心房颤动(AF)常并存,但关于根据左心室射血分数(LVEF)采用不同消融策略的预后价值的数据很少。
从 2007 年 1 月至 2010 年 1 月,在进行 AF 导管消融前,728 例 HF 患者入组多中心德国消融登记处。根据 LVEF 将患者分为三组:射血分数保留的 HF(≥50%,HFpEF,n=333)、中间范围射血分数(40-49%,HFmrEF,n=207)和射血分数降低的 HF(<40%,HFrEF,n=188)。三组之间的消融策略存在显著差异,HFpEF(83.4%)和 HFmrEF(78.4%)的大多数患者接受环形肺静脉隔离,而 HFrEF 的患者为 48.9%。后者有 47.3%行房室(AV)结消融。主要并发症在各组之间无差异。Kaplan-Meier 生存分析显示 HFrEF 患者死亡率显著增加(HFrEF 中为 6.1%,HFmrEF 中为 1.5%,HFpEF 中为 1.9%,p=0.009),仅限于行 AV 结消融的患者。
HFpEF、HFmrEF 和 HFrEF 患者的导管消融策略存在显著差异。HFrEF 患者中近 50%行 AV 结消融,死亡率显著增加。这些结果应引起进一步评估 HF 患者消融策略预后效果的努力。