Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure (HF) patients and influences the choice and effects of drug and device therapy. In this large real-world HF registry, we studied whether the presence of AF affects the prescription of guideline-recommended HF therapy. We analyzed 8253 patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 34 Dutch outpatient clinics included in the period between 2013 and 2016 treated according to the 2012 ESC guidelines. 2109 (25.6%) of these patients were in AF (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 65.0% were men) and 6.144 (74.4%) had no AF (mean age 70.7 ± 12.2 years, 63.6% were men). Patients with AF more often received beta-blockers (81.7% vs. 79.7%, p = 0.04), MRAs (57.1% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.01), diuretics (89.7% vs. 80.6%, p < 0.01) and digoxin (40.1% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.01) compared to patients without AF, whereas they less often receive renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors (76.1% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). The number of patients who received beta-blockers, RAS-inhibitor and MRA at ≥50% of the recommended target dose was comparable between those with and without AF (16.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.07). In this large cohort of chronic HFrEF patients, the prevalence of AF was high and we observed significant differences in prescription of both guideline-recommended HF between patients with and without AF. • HFrEF patients with AF received more often beta-blockers, MRA, diuretics and digoxin. • HFrEF patients with AF received less often RAS-inhibitors. • More insight in the efficacy and adherence of HF therapy in AF patients is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Duty-cycled (DC) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been introduced, however, data on large patient series and comparison to conventional RFA are scarce. Methods: Between 2006 and 2008DC RFA was performed in 209 consecutive patients (143 (68%) paroxysmal and 66 (32%) persistent AF). As controls served 211 patients, 155 (73%) with paroxysmal and 56 (27%) with persistent AF (p =0.3). In DC RFA, the pulmonary veins (PV) were isolated followed by ablation at the septum and left atrium, if AF persisted. Conventional PV isolation was followed by anatomical lines at the roof and mitral isthmus. Results: Freedom of paroxysmal AF was demonstrated after 1.08DC RFA procedures per patient in 82% and after 1.19 conventional procedures in 87% after 8.5±6.5months (ns). In persistent AF, success rates were 79% after 1.35DC RFA procedures and 80% after 1.34 conventional procedures after 11.5±8.5months (ns). The subgroup analysis of 119 patients with follow-up ≥12months (17.5 [14.1–23.6] months) showed similar results. Left atrial flutter occurred in 3% and 8% after paroxysmal AF ablation (p <0.05) and in 12% and 23% after persistent AF ablation (p =0.1). Multivariate predictors for success in both groups were age, left atrial size, presence of persistent vs. paroxysmal AF and previous pacemaker implantation, but not the ablation technique used. Non-fatal complications were seen in 2.8% with no differences between the groups. Conclusion: Outcome in DC RFA is similar to conventional RFA with a final success rate exceeding 80% in both paroxysmal and persistent AF in the absence of fatal complications. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]