Abstract:Background The CASTLE-AF trial demonstrated that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who underwent catheter ablation (CA) showed improved patient outcomes. These outcomes included a reduction in all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations along with an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, when compared to those receiving medical therapy alone. However, there is no data regarding development of novel HFrEF and the need for implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with AF who underwent CA vs. those on antiarrhythmic therapy (AAD). Purpose This study aims to assess if there is a difference in the development of HFrEF and the need for ICD intervention amongst AF patients who underwent CA vs. those on AAD. We hypothesize that patients with AF who underwent CA will have a decrease in the development of HFrEF and mitigation in the need for ICD intervention compared to AAD alone. Methods A large retrospective, multicentre database was utilized to identify patients aged 18-80 with AF from 2017-2023. Two cohorts were subsequently established based on treatment received: 1) CA vs. 2) AAD (amiodarone, flecainide, dronedarone, dofetilide, propafenone, sotalol). Patients with crossover between the groups were excluded. Student's t-test was performed to compare baseline characteristics between cohorts. Relevant comorbidities, atrial fibrillation types, and cardiovascular medications were used for propensity matching. Kaplan Meier curves were calculated to compare outcomes at 5 years such as HFrEF development, ICD implantation, mortality, and hospitalizations. Results Patients that underwent CA (n=32,774) and AAD (n=345,882) were propensity matched yielding 32,670 patients per cohort. CA demonstrated a significantly decreased need for ICD intervention compared to AAD (1.69% vs. 3.28%; HR=0.559; 95% CI [0.503, 0.621], log rank p<0.0001). Secondary outcomes showed significant reduction in development of systolic heart failure (4.83% vs. 10.60%; HR=0.499; 95% CI [0.467, 0.533], log rank p<0.0001), overall hospitalizations (12.03% vs. 27.32%; HR=0.440; 95% CI [0.420, 0.461], log rank p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (2.38% vs. 14.19%; HR=0.188; 95% CI [0.174, 0.203], log rank p<0.0001) with catheter ablation. Conclusions Patients that underwent CA had a significant reduction in development of systolic heart failure and mitigation in the need for ICD implantation when compared to those on AAD alone. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better understand this relationship and to further define which subpopulation of atrial fibrillation patients would derive the most benefit from CA.

Association Between Atrial Fibrillation and Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy: Results from A Prospective Study

Association of device detected atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmia with adverse events in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Retrospective Analysis on the Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Multivariable analysis of incident ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Abstract 14262: Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices

Atrial Fibrillation is Associated with Increased Pacemaker Implantation Rates in the Placement of AoRTic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial.

Incidence and Causes of Inappropriate Detection and Therapy by Implantable Defibrillators of Cardioversion in Patients with Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia

Long-term Risk of Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation As Documented by an Implantable Monitoring Device: Implications for Optimal Patient Care.

Incidence of systolic heart failure and need for implantable cardiac defibrillators in patients with atrial fibrillation who had catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medical therapy

Atrial fibrillation burden and heart failure: Data from 39,710 individuals with cardiac implanted electronic devices

Atrial Fibrillation Burden Detected by Dual-Chamber Pacemakers As a Predictor for Cardiac Outcomes: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study.

A retrospective study of atrial fibrillation after DDD pacemaker implantation

Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated With Increased Mortality in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial

Cause and Treatment of Inappropriate Therapy of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Association Between Changes in Physical Activity and New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After ICD/CRT-D Implantation

Use of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Predicting Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias Using Real-Time Remote Monitoring

Diffuse myocardial fibrosis associates with incident ventricular arrhythmia in implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients

Abstract 13047: Clinical Risk Stratification for Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (Icds)

Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35