Search

Aims: Recent trial data demonstrate beneficial effects of active rhythm management in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and support the concept that a low arrhythmia burden is associated with a low risk of AF-related complications. The aim of this document is to summarize the key outcomes of the 9th AFNET/EHRA Consensus Conference of the Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)., Methods and Results: Eighty-three international experts met in Münster for 2 days in September 2023. Key findings are as follows: (i) Active rhythm management should be part of the default initial treatment for all suitable patients with AF. (ii) Patients with device-detected AF have a low burden of AF and a low risk of stroke. Anticoagulation prevents some strokes and also increases major but non-lethal bleeding. (iii) More research is needed to improve stroke risk prediction in patients with AF, especially in those with a low AF burden. Biomolecules, genetics, and imaging can support this. (iv) The presence of AF should trigger systematic workup and comprehensive treatment of concomitant cardiovascular conditions. (v) Machine learning algorithms have been used to improve detection or likely development of AF. Cooperation between clinicians and data scientists is needed to leverage the potential of data science applications for patients with AF., Conclusions: Patients with AF and a low arrhythmia burden have a lower risk of stroke and other cardiovascular events than those with a high arrhythmia burden. Combining active rhythm control, anticoagulation, rate control, and therapy of concomitant cardiovascular conditions can improve the lives of patients with AF., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The 9th AFNET/EHRA consensus conference was partially supported by the European Union MAESTRIA project (grant agreement 965286) to AFNET. The following participants and authors are employees of companies active in cardiovascular health as indicated in their affiliations: M.D.M., E.D., C.E., G.H., L.H.H., T.H., R.H.v.L., M.W., and H.W. P.K. was partially supported by the European Union AFFECT-AF (grant agreement 847770) and MAESTRIA (grant agreement 965286), German Center for Cardiovascular Research supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (DZHK, grant numbers DZHK FKZ 81X2800182, 81Z0710116, and 81Z0710110), German Research Foundation (Ki 509167694), and Leducq Foundation. He receives research support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from several drug and device companies active in AF and has received honoraria from several such companies in the past, but not in the last 3 years. He is listed as an inventor on two issued patents held by the University of Hamburg (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571, Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783). J.G.A. was partially supported by the Canadian Arrhythmia Network and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Baylis Medical. He receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer, BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, and Medtronic Inc. E.A. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Biosense Webster and Bayer. G.B. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Janssen. A.J.C. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer, Pfizer/BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Sanofi, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Huya Bio, and Milestone. V.C. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Ever Pharma (paid to the institution of employment). W.D. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Reata and research grants from MicroPort, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. S.Z.D. receives consulting fees from BMS/Pfizer, Cortrium, and Acesion Pharma and speaker fees from MS/Pfizer and Bayer. He is listed as a medical advisor for Vital Beats. Dobromir D. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Elsevier, Springer Healthcare Ltd, and Daiichi Sankyo and research grants as follows: four NIH grants (partially) from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; one NIH grant from UC Davis, one NIH grant from the University of Minnesota, and one EU-Project H2020. David D. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, BMS/Pfizer, CVRx, Medtronic, MicroPort, and Zoll and research grants from Roche, CVRx, and Zoll. L.E. has received lecture fees from various companies in AF in the past but none related to the present work. L.F. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Roche (paid to the institution of employment). She is currently employed at the UKE and previously at the University of Birmingham. She was partially supported by the European Union AFFECT-EU (grant agreement 847770), MAESTRIA (grant agreement 965286), CATCH ME (grant agreement 633196), and the British Heart Foundation (AA/18/2/3218). D.F.-R. receives research grants from Abbott. He is listed as an inventor on two issued patents: EP3636147A1 (method for the identification of cardiac fibrillation drivers and/or the footprint of rotational activations) and PCT/EP2022/071364 (system and method of assessment of electromechanical remodelling). A.G. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific and was partially supported by the European Union MAESTRIA (grant agreement 965286). K.G.H. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Alexion, Amarin, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novaris, Portola, Premier Research, Sanofi, SUN Pharma, and W. L. Gore and Associates. J.S.H. receives speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, and Boston Scientific and consulting fees from Bayer and Boston Scientific. He receives research grants from BMS/Pfizer, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. H.H. receives lecture and consulting fees from Bayer, Biotronik, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, Centrix India, C.T.I. Germany, ESC, Medscape, and Springer Healthcare Ltd. He receives research grants (paid to the institution of employment, University of Antwerp and/or University of Hasselt) from Abbott, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Fibricheck/Qompium, Medtronic, and BMS/Pfizer. Z.H. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics. He was partially supported by The Swedish Society for Medical Research (S17-0133), Hjärt-Lungfonden (The Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, 20200722), and the institution he is currently employed at (Uppsala University Hospital). L.H.-M. receives research grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2020-116927RB-C21) and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). D.K. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer, Amomed, and Protherics Medicines Development. He receives research grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR CDF-2015-08-074 RAE-AF; NIHR130280 DaRe2THINK; NIHR13274 D2T-NeuroVascular; and NIHR203326 Biomedical Research Centre), the British Heart Foundation (PG/17/55/33087, AA/182/3218, and FS/CDRF/21/21032), the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative (BigData@Heart 116074), EU Horizon and UKRI (HYPERMARKER 101095480) UK National Health Service—Data for R&D-Subnational Secure Data Environment programme, UK Department for Business, Energy Industrial Strategy Regulators Pioneer Fund, the Cook & Wolstenholme Charitable Trust, and the European Society of Cardiology supported by educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Alliance, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Boston Scientific, the NIHR/University of Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the British Hear Foundation, the University of Birmingham Accelerator Award (STEEER-AF). J.L.M. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Biotronik, Medtronic, MicroPort, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals. A.M. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific and lecture fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, BMS, and Bayer. L.M. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. G.A.N. receives lecture fees from AliveCor, consultant fees from Biosense Webster, and research grants from Abbott and Biosense Webster. H.P. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Pfizer. P.S. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, CathRx, and PaceMate (paid to the institution of employment). He is currently employed at the University of Adelaide, which receives research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Becton-Dickenson. R.B.S. receives consulting fees/honoraria from BMS/Pfizer. She was partially supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 648131 and 847770), German Center for Cardiovascular Research supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (DZHK, grant numbers 81Z1710103 and 81Z0710114), German Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF 01ZX1408A), ERACoSysMed3 (031L0239), Wolfgang Seefried project funding German Heart Foundation. U.S. receives consulting fees/honoraria from University Svizzerra Italiana, Stanford, and Johnson & Johnson and research grants from the European Union, Dutch Heart Foundation, Roche, and EP Solution. He is a shareholder of YourRhythmics B.V. T.T. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. I.C.v.G. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Bayer (paid to the institution of employment). She is currently employed at the University of Groningen. K.V. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Philips, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific and research grants from Medtronic and Biosense Webster. R.W. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Abiomed, and Zoll and a research grant from Boston Scientific, BMS/Pfizer, and Abiomed. S.W. receives consulting fees/honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Bayer Vital and a research grant from Boston Scientific. All remaining authors (G.B., J.C.N., T.D.P., N.D., M.F., E.G., S.H., S.K., D.L., K.M.-R., M.O., A.S.P., U.R., M.R., D.S., C.S., G.S., D.S., S.T., R.H.v.L., and S.Z.) have declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The incidence of PV stenosis after routine post-ablation imaging remains unclear and is limited to single-centre studies. Our objective was to determine the incidence and predictors of PV stenosis following circumferential radiofrequency ablation in the multicentre Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination (ADVICE) trial., Methods: Patients with symptomatic AF underwent circumferential radiofrequency ablation in one of 13 trial centres. Computed tomographic (CTA) or magnetic resonance (MRA) angiography was performed before ablation and 90 days after ablation. Two blinded reviewers measured PV diameters and areas. PVs with stenosis were classified as severe (> 70%), moderate (50%-70%), or mild (< 50%). Predictors of PV stenosis were identified by means of multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 197 patients (median age 59.5 years, 29.4% women) were included in this substudy. PV stenosis was identified in 41 patients (20.8%) and 47 (8.2%) of 573 ablated PVs. PV stenosis was classified as mild in 42 PVs (7.3%) and moderate in 5 PVs (0.9%). No PVs had severe stenosis. Both cross-sectional area and diameter yielded similar classifications for severity of PV stenosis. Diabetes was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of PV stenosis (OR 4.91, 95% CI 1.45-16.66)., Conclusions: In the first systematic multicentre evaluation of post-ablation PV stenosis, no patient acquired severe PV stenosis. Although the results are encouraging for the safety of AF ablation, 20.8% of patients had mild or moderate PV stenosis, in which the long-term effects are unknown., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Per standard of care, dual-chamber pacemakers are programmed in DDDR mode with fixed atrioventricular (AV) delay or with long AV delay to minimize ventricular pacing. We aimed to evaluate whether the PR interval may be a specific criterion of choice between standard DDDR, to preserve AV synchrony in long PR patients, and managed ventricular pacing (MVP), to avoid ventricular desynchronization imposed by right ventricle apical pacing, in short PR patients., Methods and Results: In the MINERVA trial, 1166 patients were randomized to Control DDDR, MVP, or atrial anti-tachycardia pacing plus MVP (DDDRP + MVP). We evaluated the interaction of PR interval with pacing mode by comparing the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) longer than 7 consecutive days as a function of PR interval. Out of 906 patients with available data, the median PR interval was 180 ms. The PR interval was found to significantly (P = 0.012) interact with pacing mode for AF incidence: the risk of AF > 7 days was lower [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34-0.99; P = 0.047] in patients with short PR (shorter than median PR) if programmed in MVP mode compared with DDDR mode and it was lower (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049) in patients with long PR (equal to or longer than median PR) if programmed in DDDR mode compared with MVP., Conclusion: Our data show that PR interval may be used as a selection criterion to identify the optimal physiological pacing mode. Persistent AF incidence was lower in short PR patients treated by right ventricular pacing minimization and in long PR patients treated by standard dual-chamber pacing., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Approximately 10% of ischemic strokes are associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) first diagnosed at the time of stroke. Detecting asymptomatic AF would provide an opportunity to prevent these strokes by instituting appropriate anticoagulation. The AF-SCREEN international collaboration was formed in September 2015 to promote discussion and research about AF screening as a strategy to reduce stroke and death and to provide advocacy for implementation of country-specific AF screening programs. During 2016, 60 expert members of AF-SCREEN, including physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, health economists, and patient advocates, were invited to prepare sections of a draft document. In August 2016, 51 members met in Rome to discuss the draft document and consider the key points arising from it using a Delphi process. These key points emphasize that screen-detected AF found at a single timepoint or by intermittent ECG recordings over 2 weeks is not a benign condition and, with additional stroke factors, carries sufficient risk of stroke to justify consideration of anticoagulation. With regard to the methods of mass screening, handheld ECG devices have the advantage of providing a verifiable ECG trace that guidelines require for AF diagnosis and would therefore be preferred as screening tools. Certain patient groups, such as those with recent embolic stroke of uncertain source (ESUS), require more intensive monitoring for AF. Settings for screening include various venues in both the community and the clinic, but they must be linked to a pathway for appropriate diagnosis and management for screening to be effective. It is recognized that health resources vary widely between countries and health systems, so the setting for AF screening should be both country- and health system-specific. Based on current knowledge, this white paper provides a strong case for AF screening now while recognizing that large randomized outcomes studies would be helpful to strengthen the evidence base., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Catheter ablation is increasingly used to manage atrial fibrillation, but arrhythmia recurrences are common. Adenosine might identify pulmonary veins at risk of reconnection by unmasking dormant conduction, and thereby guide additional ablation to improve arrhythmia-free survival. We assessed whether adenosine-guided pulmonary vein isolation could prevent arrhythmia recurrence in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation., Methods: We did this randomised trial at 18 hospitals in Australia, Europe, and North America. We enrolled patients aged older than 18 years who had had at least three symptomatic atrial fibrillation episodes in the past 6 months, and for whom treatment with an antiarrhythmic drug failed. After pulmonary vein isolation, intravenous adenosine was administered. If dormant conduction was present, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to additional adenosine-guided ablation to abolish dormant conduction or to no further ablation. If no dormant conduction was revealed, randomly selected patients were included in a registry. Patients were masked to treatment allocation and outcomes were assessed by a masked adjudicating committee. Patients were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was time to symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia after a single procedure in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01058980., Findings: Adenosine unmasked dormant pulmonary vein conduction in 284 (53%) of 534 patients. 102 (69·4%) of 147 patients with additional adenosine-guided ablation were free from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia compared with 58 (42·3%) of 137 patients with no further ablation, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 27·1% (95% CI 15·9-38·2; p<0·0001) and a hazard ratio of 0·44 (95% CI 0·31-0·64; p<0·0001). Of 115 patients without dormant pulmonary vein conduction, 64 (55·7%) remained free from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia (p=0·0191 vs dormant conduction with no further ablation). Occurrences of serious adverse events were similar in each group. One death (massive stroke) was deemed probably related to ablation in a patient included in the registry., Interpretation: Adenosine testing to identify and target dormant pulmonary vein conduction during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is a safe and highly effective strategy to improve arrhythmia-free survival in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. This approach should be considered for incorporation into routine clinical practice., Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, St Jude Medical, Biosense-Webster, and M Lachapelle (Montreal Heart Institute Foundation)., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sufficient electrode-tissue contact is crucial for adequate lesion formation in radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA)., Objective: We assessed the impact of direct catheter force measurement on acute procedural parameters and outcome of RFCA for paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: Ninety-nine consecutive patients (70% men) with paroxysmal (63.6%) or persistent AF underwent left atrial RFCA using a 3.5-mm open-irrigated-tip (OIT) catheter with contact force measurement capabilities (group 1). For comparison a case-matched cohort with standard OIT catheters was used (99 patients; group 2). Case matching included gender, type of AF, number or RFCA procedures, and type of procedure., Results: Procedural data showed a significant decline in radiofrequency ablation time from 52 ± 20 to 44 ± 16 minutes (P = 0.003) with a remarkable mean reduction in overall procedure time of 34 minutes (P = 0.0001; 225.8 ± 53.1 vs 191.9 ± 53.3 minutes). In parallel, the total fluoroscopy time could be significantly reduced from 28.5 ± 11.0 to 19.9 ± 9.3 minutes (P = 0.0001) as well as fluoroscopy dose from 74.1 ± 58.0 to 56.7 ± 38.9 Gy/cm(2) (P = 0.016). Periprocedural complications were similar in both groups., Conclusions: The use of contact force sensing technology is able to significantly reduce ablation, procedure, and fluoroscopy times as well as dose in RFCA of AF in a mixed case-matched group of paroxysmal and persistent AF. Energy delivery is substantially reduced by avoiding radiofrequency ablation in positions with insufficient surface contact. Additionally 12-month outcome data showed increased efficacy. Such time saving and equally safe technology may have a relevant impact on laboratory management and increased cost effectiveness., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) has emerged as an effective therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF recurs in up to 50% of patients, generally because of recovery of PV conduction. Adenosine given during the initial procedure may reveal dormant PV conduction, thereby identifying the need for additional ablation, leading to improved outcomes. The Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination (ADVICE) study is a prospective multicentre randomized trial assessing the impact of adenosine-guided PVI in preventing AF recurrences., Methods: Patients undergoing a first PVI procedure for paroxysmal AF will be recruited. After standard PVI is completed, all patients will receive intravenous adenosine in an attempt to unmask dormant conduction. If dormant conduction is elicited, patients will be randomized to no further ablation (control group) or additional adenosine-guided ablation until dormant conduction is abolished. If no dormant conduction is revealed, randomly selected patients will be followed in a registry. The primary outcome is time to first documented symptomatic AF recurrence. Assuming that dormant conduction is present in 50% of patients post PVI and symptomatic AF recurs in 45% of controls, 244 patients with dormant conduction will be required to obtain > 90% power to detect a difference of 20%. Thus, a total of 488 patients will be enrolled and followed for 12 months., Conclusion: The ADVICE trial will assess whether a PVI strategy incorporating elimination of dormant conduction unmasked by intravenous adenosine will decrease the rate of recurrent symptomatic AF compared with standard PVI., (Copyright © 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pacemaker patients is contraindicated due to documented potential risks to the patient from hazardous interactions between the MRI and pacemaker system., Objective: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled, worldwide clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a pacemaker system designed for safe use in MRI for any bradycardia indicated patient., Methods: Patients (n = 464) were randomized to undergo an MRI scan between 9 and 12 weeks postimplant (MRI group, n = 258) or not to undergo MRI (control group, n = 206) after successful implantation of the specially designed dual-chamber pacemaker and leads. Patients were monitored for arrhythmias, symptoms, and pacemaker system function during 14 nonclinically indicated relevant brain and lumbar MRI sequences. Sequences were performed at 1.5 T and included scans with high radiofrequency power deposition and/or high gradient dB/dt exposure. Clinical evaluation of the pacemaker system function occurred immediately before and after MRI, 1 week and 1 month post-MRI, and at corresponding times for the control group. Primary endpoints for safety analyzed the MRI procedure complication-free rate and for effectiveness compared capture and sensing performance between MRI and control groups., Results: No MRI-related complications occurred during or after MRI, including sustained ventricular arrhythmias, pacemaker inhibition or output failures, electrical resets, or other pacemaker malfunctions. Pacing capture threshold and sensed electrogram amplitude changes were minimal and similar between study groups., Conclusion: This trial documented the ability of this pacemaker system to be exposed in a controlled fashion to MRI in a 1.5 T scanner without adverse impact on patient outcomes or pacemaker system function., (Copyright © 2011 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)