Aims The optimal treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) has been a subject of debate for years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rhythm control strategy in patients with AF complicated with HF regarding hard clinical endpoints. Methods and results Up-to-date randomized data comparing rhythm control using antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) vs. rate control (Subset A) or rhythm control using catheter ablation vs. medical therapy (Subset B) in AF and HF patients were pooled. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, stroke, and thromboembolic events. A total of 11 studies involving 3598 patients were enrolled (Subset A: 2486; Subset B: 1112). As compared with medical rate control, the AADs rhythm control was associated with similar all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, P = 0.65], significantly higher rate of re-hospitalization (OR: 1.25, P = 0.01), and similar rate of stroke and thromboembolic events (OR: 0.91, P = 0.76,); however, as compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation rhythm control was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR: 0.51, P = 0.0003), reduced re-hospitalization rate (OR: 0.44, P = 0.003), similar rate of stroke events (OR: 0.59, P = 0.27), greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [weighted mean difference (WMD): 6.8%, P = 0.0004], lower arrhythmia recurrence (29.6% vs. 80.1%, OR: 0.04, P < 0.00001), and greater improvement in quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score) (WMD: −9.1, P = 0.007). Conclusion Catheter ablation as rhythm control strategy substantially improves survival rate, reduces re-hospitalization, increases the maintenance rate of sinus rhythm, contributes to preserve cardiac function, and improves quality of life for AF patients complicated with HF.

Key Points Question Does the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have any association with reduction in atrial fibrillation and adverse events for patients undergoing cardiac surgery? Findings This systematic review and meta-analysis involving 11 unique studies with 27 885 patients undergoing cardiac surgery found no additional association between preoperative renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy and a reduced risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation, stroke, death, or hospitalization. Meaning The results provide no support for the routine use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors for the possible prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation and adverse events in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation (AF). Non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs; however, evidence regarding their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAO is limited. Up-to-date randomized trials or propensity-score-matched data comparing LAAO vs. NOACs in high-risk patients with AF were pooled in our study. A total of 2849 AF patients (LAAO: 1368, NOACs: 1481, mean age: 75 ± 7.5 yrs, 63.5% male) were enrolled. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.7, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.4 ± 1.2. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the LAAO group, the success rate of device implantation was 98.8%. During a mean follow-up of 2 years, as compared with NOACs, LAAO was associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding (p = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in terms of ischemic stroke (p = 0.61), ischemic stroke/thromboembolism (p = 0.63), ISTH major and clinically relevant minor bleeding (p = 0.73), cardiovascular death (p = 0.63), and all-cause mortality (p = 0.71). There was a trend toward reduction of combined major cardiovascular and neurological endpoints in the LAAO group (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.64–1.11, p = 0.12). In conclusion, for high-risk AF patients, LAAO is associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding without increased ischemic events, as compared to “contemporary NOACs”. The present data show the superior role of LAAO over NOACs among high-risk AF patients in terms of reduction of major bleeding; however, more randomized controlled trials are warranted.

No abstract

No abstract