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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of de novo tachyarrhythmias in patients with prior acute coronary syndrome

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

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

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

Incidence and impact of atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients: real‐world data in a large community

Implications of new-onset atrial fibrillation on in-hospital and long-term prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction: A report from the CBD bank study

Retrospective Analysis of the Appropriate and Inappropriate Shock Characteristics in 134 Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

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

Factors influencing early recurrence of atrial fibrillation among elderly patients following radiofrequency catheter ablation and the impact of different antiarrhythmic regimens

Atrial fibrillation and clinical outcomes 1 to 3 years after myocardial infarction

Cause and Treatment of Inappropriate Therapy of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

The Effect of Atrial Fibrillation on the Long-Term Mortality of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: The TACOS Study

Clinical implications of atrial fibrillation recurrence vs. burden following catheter ablation: outcome data from 3 contemporary clinical trials using an insertable cardiac monitor

Rhythm Outcomes After Aortic Valve Surgery: Treatment And Evolution Of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation