Atrioventricular nodal ablation is an effective management strategy for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Atrial fibrillation
Atrioventricular nodal ablation
Device therapy
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Pace and ablate
Journal
Heart rhythm
ISSN: 1556-3871
Titre abrégé: Heart Rhythm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101200317
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
13
07
2023
revised:
15
08
2023
accepted:
21
08
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
27
8
2023
entrez:
26
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and can be challenging to manage. Atrioventricular nodal (AVN) ablation may be an effective management strategy for AF in these patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of AVN ablation in HCM patients who have failed medical therapy and/or catheter ablation for AF. A multicenter study with retrospective analysis of a prospectively collated HCM registry was performed. AVN ablation patients were identified. Baseline characteristics and device and procedural indications were collected. Symptoms defined by New York Heart Association and European Heart Rhythm Association classification and echocardiographic findings during follow-up were assessed. Fifty-nine patients were included in the study. Indications for AVN ablation were 6 (10.2%) inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, 35 (59.3%) ineffective rate control, and 18 (30.5%) to regularize rhythm for symptom improvement. During post-AVN ablation follow-up of 79.4 ± 61.1 months, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remained stable (pre-LVEF 48.9% ± 12.6% vs post-LVEF 50.1% ± 10.1%; P = .29), even in those without a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device (pre-LVEF 54.3% ± 8.0% vs post-LVEF 53.8% ± 8.0%; P = .65). Forty-nine patients (83.1%) reported an improvement in symptoms regardless of AF type (17/21 [81.0%] paroxysmal vs 32/38 [84.2%] persistent; P = 1.00), presence of baseline left ventricular impairment (22/26 [84.6%] LVEF ≤50% vs 27/33 [81.8%] LVEF ≥50%; P = 1.00) or CRT device (27/32 [84.4%] CRT vs 22/27 [81.5%] no CRT; P = 1.00). Symptoms improved in 16 patients (89.0%) who underwent AVN ablation to regularize rhythm. AVN ablation improved symptoms without impacting left ventricular function in the majority of patients. The data suggest that AVN ablation is an effective and safe management approach for AF in HCM and should be further evaluated in larger prospective studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and can be challenging to manage. Atrioventricular nodal (AVN) ablation may be an effective management strategy for AF in these patients.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of AVN ablation in HCM patients who have failed medical therapy and/or catheter ablation for AF.
METHODS
METHODS
A multicenter study with retrospective analysis of a prospectively collated HCM registry was performed. AVN ablation patients were identified. Baseline characteristics and device and procedural indications were collected. Symptoms defined by New York Heart Association and European Heart Rhythm Association classification and echocardiographic findings during follow-up were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-nine patients were included in the study. Indications for AVN ablation were 6 (10.2%) inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, 35 (59.3%) ineffective rate control, and 18 (30.5%) to regularize rhythm for symptom improvement. During post-AVN ablation follow-up of 79.4 ± 61.1 months, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remained stable (pre-LVEF 48.9% ± 12.6% vs post-LVEF 50.1% ± 10.1%; P = .29), even in those without a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device (pre-LVEF 54.3% ± 8.0% vs post-LVEF 53.8% ± 8.0%; P = .65). Forty-nine patients (83.1%) reported an improvement in symptoms regardless of AF type (17/21 [81.0%] paroxysmal vs 32/38 [84.2%] persistent; P = 1.00), presence of baseline left ventricular impairment (22/26 [84.6%] LVEF ≤50% vs 27/33 [81.8%] LVEF ≥50%; P = 1.00) or CRT device (27/32 [84.4%] CRT vs 22/27 [81.5%] no CRT; P = 1.00). Symptoms improved in 16 patients (89.0%) who underwent AVN ablation to regularize rhythm.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
AVN ablation improved symptoms without impacting left ventricular function in the majority of patients. The data suggest that AVN ablation is an effective and safe management approach for AF in HCM and should be further evaluated in larger prospective studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37633429
pii: S1547-5271(23)02644-9
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.08.028
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1606-1614Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.