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.

Three-year incidence of pacemaker implantation in patients with atrial fibrillation and sinus node dysfunction receiving ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs

Safety observation of antiarrhythmic drug use in a patient with sinus bradycardia following atrial fibrillation radiofrequency ablation combined with cardiac neural ablation: a case report

Pacing mode survival in patients with single chamber atrial pacemaker for sinus node dysfunction

Atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation in the era of conduction system pacing

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

Impact of Corrected Sinus Node Recovery Time in Predicting Recurrence in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Sinoatrial nodal artery injury in thoracoscopic epicardial ablation for atrial fibrillation

Relationship between amiodarone response prior to ablation and 1-year outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with early persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure: results of the RACE 3 study

Accuracy of symptoms and pulse checking for detecting atrial fibrillation following catheter ablation

Initial experience with ablation of the innervation surrounding sinus and atrioventricular nodes to treat paroxysmal bradyarrhythmia

A retrospective study of atrial fibrillation after DDD pacemaker implantation

Sinus node dysfunction and atrial fibrillation-Relationships, clinical phenotypes, new mechanisms, and treatment approaches

Thoracoscopic Surgical Biatrial Ablation vs. Catheter Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Direct-to-catheter ablation versus second line catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: Effect on arrhythmia recurrence, AF burden, early left atrium remodeling and quality of life

Long-Term Outcomes and Improvements in Quality of Life in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Antiarrhythmic drugs for the maintenance of sinus rhythm: risks and benefits

Is sinus rhythm maintenance after repeat catheter ablation effective in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

Efficacy of Catheter Ablation and Concomitant Antiarrhythmic Drugs on the Reduction of the Arrhythmia Burden in Patients with Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Efficacy of Short-Term Antiarrhythmic Drugs Use after Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation—A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Strategic timing- early and delayed catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation