Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction; a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Catheter ablation is superior to pharmacological therapies for lowering adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Yet, it is uncertain whether patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) derive the same treatment benefit from catheter ablation. Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether the efficacy of AF catheter ablation in reducing all-cause mortality and heart failure events is different in patients with HFrEF versus HFpEF. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials in patients with heart failure comparing catheter ablation for AF with medical therapy (defined as rate or rhythm control with medications, device implantation, and/or cardioversion). The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and heart failure events (i.e. hospitalization or worsening). Pairs of reviewers systematically screened the eligible studies and used random-effects models to combine data. We contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain unpublished data on heart failure subgroups. We used an interaction p-value to test the statistical significance of difference between subgroups with HFrEF and HFpEF. Results A total of 8 studies (2118 participants, mean age: 65.6 years, 28.1% women) assessed the effect of catheter ablation on all-cause mortality in patients with AF and heart failure. We found no statistical evidence of a different effect for AF catheter ablation in reducing all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF (196 events, RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.90) compared to those with HFpEF (77 events, RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.39-2.30) – p for subgroup differences=0.46. In addition, 7 studies (2057 participants, mean age: 65.8 years, 29% women) evaluated the effect of catheter ablation on heart failure events in patients with AF and heart failure. As compared to conventional medical therapies, AF catheter ablation significantly reduced the risk of heart failure events in patients with HFrEF (285 events, RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.72); however, it had little or no effect on heart failure events in those with HFpEF (106 events, RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.65-1.32). Interaction analysis showed significant effect modification for AF catheter ablation in patients with HFpEF – p for subgroup differences=0.03. Conclusion Catheter ablation is superior to conventional medical therapies for reducing all-cause mortality in patients with AF and heart failure. However, its beneficial effect on heart failure events may be limited to patients with HFrEF. The available evidence on patients with HFpEF is insufficient for a definitive conclusion. Future trials are warranted to study the prognostic effect of catheter ablation in patients with AF and HFpEF.All-cause MortalityHeart Failure Events
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".