Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial.


Journal

Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology
ISSN: 1941-3084
Titre abrégé: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101474365

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
entrez: 26 11 2019
pubmed: 26 11 2019
medline: 9 6 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%; The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial.
METHODS
Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility.
RESULTS
Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%;
CONCLUSIONS
The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31760819
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents 0

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00652522']

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e007731

Auteurs

Karl-Heinz Kuck (KH)

Department of Cardiology, Asklepios Klinik St Georg, Hamburg, Germany (K.-H.K., R.R.T.).

Béla Merkely (B)

Semmelweis Medical University, Budapest, Hungary (B.M., L.G.).

Ralf Zahn (R)

Heart Center, Ludwigshafen, Germany (R.Z.).

Thomas Arentz (T)

University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Germany (T.A.).

Karlheinz Seidl (K)

Klinikum Ingolstadt GmbH, Ingolstadt, Germany (K.S.).

Michael Schlüter (M)

Asklepios Proresearch, Hamburg (M.S.).

Roland Richard Tilz (RR)

Department of Cardiology, Asklepios Klinik St Georg, Hamburg, Germany (K.-H.K., R.R.T.).

Christopher Piorkowski (C)

Heart Center, University of Leipzig (C.P., G.H.).

László Gellér (L)

Semmelweis Medical University, Budapest, Hungary (B.M., L.G.).

Gerhard Hindricks (G)

Heart Center, University of Leipzig (C.P., G.H.).

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH