Risks of Intensive Treatment of Long-Standing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With a Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Milton Packer M.D.
Packer, M. (2019). “Risks of Intensive Treatment of Long-Standing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With a Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.” Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 12(8): e005747.
Properly designed and executed randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the appropriate strategy for rate or rhythm control for AF in patients with chronic heart failure. Such trials should focus on both patients with HFpEF and HFrEF (particularly those with an ejection fraction <30%); both phenotypes are common among patients with AF in the community. Participants would be randomized to pharmacological rate control (target rate <110/min) or to catheter ablation; because patients would have long-standing AF, they would not need cardiotoxic drugs to achieve rhythm control. Although it would be relevant to assess the effect of ablation on symptoms, quality-of-life, or exercise tolerance, these measures are readily influenced by knowledge of the treatment received. Unfortunately, sham procedures would not address the issue of blinding because patients and physicians could readily unblind the identity of their treatment by examining the pulse. However, if the trials are powered to detect a reduction in the primary end point of death, no blinding is needed. Mortality is a persuasive end point, and if the benefit of ablation on mortality is as large as is currently claimed, future trials in high-risk patients will not need to be large or follow patients for long periods of time. The proposed trial could also compare the effects of different rate targets (ventricular rate <80/min versus 90–110/min) in patients randomized to rate control and could determine if the treatment strategies yield different effects in patients with HFrEF or HFpEF . . . Until appropriate trials of rate or rhythm control are performed, physicians have little evidence to guide to the management of AF in patients with chronic heart failure. Aside from the risk of thromboembolic events, we are uncertain about the pathophysiological and clinical importance of the arrhythmia, especially in those with a long-standing arrhythmia. When intensively applied, all current therapeutic strategies—pharmacological or ablative rhythm control or drug-induced rate control—carry an important potential for harm. (Excerpts from text, p. 3-4; no abstract available.)