To Örebro University

Aims: Atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment in patients with therapy refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) but renders the patient pacemaker dependent. We aimed to analyse the long-term incidence of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality in patients who underwent AVJA because of AF and to determine predictors for HF and mortality.

Methods and results: We retrospectively enrolled 162 consecutive patients, mean age 67 +/- 9 years, 48% women, who underwent AVJA because of symptomatic AF refractory to pharmacological treatment (n = 117) or unsuccessful repeated pulmonary vein isolation (n = 45). Hospitalization for HF occurred in 32 (20%) patients and 35 (22%) patients died, representing a cumulative incidence for hospitalization for HF and mortality over the first 2 years after AVJA of 9.1 and 5.2%, respectively. Hospitalization for HF occurred to the same extent in patients who failed pharmacological treatment as in patients with repeated pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), although the mortality was slightly higher in the former group. QRS prolongation >= 120 ms and left atrial diameter were independent predictors of hospitalization for HF, while hypertension and previous HF were independent predictors of death.

Conclusion: The long-term hospitalization rate for HF and all-cause mortality was low, which implies that long-term ventricular pacing was not harmful in this patient population, including patients with unsuccessful repeated PVI.

Objective: To evaluate rhythm control up to two years after AF ablation and its relation to reported symptoms.

Background: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) continuously records the ECG, has an automatic AF detection algorithm and a possibility for patients to activate an ECG recording during symptoms.

Methods: Fifty-seven patients (mean age 57±9 years, 60% male, 88% paroxysmal AF) underwent AF ablation following ILR implantation. Device data were downloaded at the ablation and three, six, 12, 18 and 24 months after ablation.

Results: Fifty-four patients completed the two-year follow-up. Thirteen (24%) patients had no AF episodes detected by ILR during follow-up. Ten of 41 patients (24%) with AF recurrence were only detected by ILR and AF recurrences were detected earlier by ILR (P<0.001). The median AF burden in patients with AF recurrence was 5.7% (IQR 0.4-14.4) and was even lower in patients with AF only detected by ILR (P = 0.001). Forty-eight % of the patients indicated symptoms via the patient activator but 33% of those recordings were not due to AF. Early AF recurrence (within 3 months) was highly associated with later AF recurrence (P<0.001). AF burden >0.5% and longest >6h before the ablation were independent predictors of AF recurrence during intermittent but not continuous monitoring.

Conclusions: After AF ablation, the AF burden was low throughout the 24 months follow-up. Nevertheless, symptoms were commonly indicated but one third of patient activated recordings did not show AF. Continuous monitoring was superior to intermittent follow-up in detecting AF episodes and assessing the AF burden.

Clinical trial registration: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00697359.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported and physician-assessed atrial fibrillation (AF)–related symptoms after AF ablation.

Background: Success of AF ablation is usually defined as freedom from AF, although symptom relief is often patients’ desire.

Methods: Symptom relief was assessed as perceived by patients using the short, validated, AF-specific symptom questionnaire AF6 and as classified by physicians using the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) classification at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. Recurrence of arrhythmia was documented by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.

Results: In total, 54 patients completed the 24-month follow-up. All 6 items on the AF6, AF6 sum score, and EHRA class improved significantly over time. The greatest improvement was seen during the first 6 months after ablation, but AF6 scores showed continued improvement up to 12 months, in contrast to EHRA class. There was a low correlation between AF6 score and EHRA class, but the predictive ability was low. Both AF6 scores and EHRA class were significantly correlated with AF burden at all times after ablation. A change of >9 points in AF6 sum score corresponded to a meaningful reduction in symptom severity.

Conclusion: Patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes were both useful in assessing symptom relief after AF ablation, although patient-reported outcomes were more sensitive tools. There was also a discrepancy between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes after ablation. Freedom from AF and a low AF burden most often resulted in a reduction of symptoms, but symptom relief also occurred despite little effect on the arrhythmia.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation improves patient-reported outcomes, irrespective of mode of intermittent rhythm monitoring. We evaluated the use of an AF-specific and a generic patient-reported outcomes instrument during continuous rhythm monitoring 2 years after AF ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed the generic 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and the AF-specific AF6 questionnaires before and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. All patients underwent continuous ECG monitoring via an implantable loop recorder. The generic patient-reported outcomes scores were compared with those of a Swedish age- and sex-matched population. After ablation, both summary scores reached normative levels at 24 months, while role-physical and vitality remained lower than norms. Responders to ablation (AF burden <0.5%) reached the norms in all individual 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey domains, while nonresponders (AF burden >0.5%) reached norms only in social functioning and mental component summary. All AF6 items and the sum score showed moderate to large improvement in both responders and nonresponders, although responders showed significantly greater improvement in all items except item 1 from before to 24 months after ablation. Higher AF burden was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF6 sum score.

CONCLUSIONS: The AF-specific AF6 questionnaire was more sensitive to changes related to AF burden than the generic 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Patients improved as documented by both instruments, but a higher AF burden after ablation was associated with poorer AF-specific patient-reported outcomes and poorer generic physical but not mental health. Our results support the use of an AF-specific instrument, alone or in combination with a generic instrument, to assess the effect of ablation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00697359.