Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial

BACKGROUND:Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. METHODS:Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology 2019-12, Vol.12 (12), p.e007731-e007731
Hauptverfasser: Kuck, Karl-Heinz, Merkely, Béla, Zahn, Ralf, Arentz, Thomas, Seidl, Karlheinz, Schlüter, Michael, Tilz, Roland Richard, Piorkowski, Christopher, Gellér, László, Kleemann, Thomas, Hindricks, Gerhard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e007731
container_issue 12
container_start_page e007731
container_title Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology
container_volume 12
creator Kuck, Karl-Heinz
Merkely, Béla
Zahn, Ralf
Arentz, Thomas
Seidl, Karlheinz
Schlüter, Michael
Tilz, Roland Richard
Piorkowski, Christopher
Gellér, László
Kleemann, Thomas
Hindricks, Gerhard
description BACKGROUND:Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. METHODS:Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. RESULTS:Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%–11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%–10.3%; P=0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients. CONCLUSIONS:The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URLhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT00652522.
doi_str_mv 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2317961756</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2317961756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2985-53ba80639f455c8cf93237d7cfe4a1886c5fc60b1f86125870906adf94bbb273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkU1v1DAQhiNERT_gB3BBPnJJ8cSJP7gtUbet1IpVtYKj5TgTYsgmi-1QlR_C78WrLKgHy6PRM49G82bZW6CXABw-1LcP9dUm1eqSUiEYvMjOQJWQMyrLl8_q0-w8hO-UcpDAX2WnDASnEtRZ9qc2sceInqyawUQ3jeQL-jAH8glDJPfYOmsGsu3Rm_0TcSPZJArHGMhXF3uySbALMTXIKnqX0LVrvBuOLjO2pJ7Gb8nlfiG5QeMjWRs3zB4_HqzkISHTzv3Glqzub-sV2R4sr7OTzgwB3xz_i2y7vtrWN_nd5-sE3eW2ULLKK9YYSTlTXVlVVtpOsYKJVtgOSwNSclt1ltMGOsmhqKSginLTdqpsmqYQ7CJ7v2j3fvo5pyX1zgWLafsRpznoIh1KcRAVTygsqPVTCB47vfduZ_yTBqoPaegljVQrvaSRZt4d9XOzw_b_xL_zJ6BcgMdpSBmEH8P8iF73aIbYawqMiVKxvKCgoKCU5unRiv0FUOmWCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2317961756</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial</title><source>American Heart Association Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Kuck, Karl-Heinz ; Merkely, Béla ; Zahn, Ralf ; Arentz, Thomas ; Seidl, Karlheinz ; Schlüter, Michael ; Tilz, Roland Richard ; Piorkowski, Christopher ; Gellér, László ; Kleemann, Thomas ; Hindricks, Gerhard</creator><creatorcontrib>Kuck, Karl-Heinz ; Merkely, Béla ; Zahn, Ralf ; Arentz, Thomas ; Seidl, Karlheinz ; Schlüter, Michael ; Tilz, Roland Richard ; Piorkowski, Christopher ; Gellér, László ; Kleemann, Thomas ; Hindricks, Gerhard</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND:Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. METHODS:Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. RESULTS:Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%–11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%–10.3%; P=0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients. CONCLUSIONS:The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URLhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT00652522.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1941-3084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1941-3149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1941-3084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31760819</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Heart Association, Inc</publisher><ispartof>Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2019-12, Vol.12 (12), p.e007731-e007731</ispartof><rights>2019 American Heart Association, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2985-53ba80639f455c8cf93237d7cfe4a1886c5fc60b1f86125870906adf94bbb273</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3674,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31760819$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kuck, Karl-Heinz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merkely, Béla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahn, Ralf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arentz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidl, Karlheinz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlüter, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tilz, Roland Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piorkowski, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gellér, László</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleemann, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hindricks, Gerhard</creatorcontrib><title>Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial</title><title>Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology</title><addtitle>Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND:Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. METHODS:Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. RESULTS:Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%–11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%–10.3%; P=0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients. CONCLUSIONS:The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URLhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT00652522.</description><issn>1941-3084</issn><issn>1941-3149</issn><issn>1941-3084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkU1v1DAQhiNERT_gB3BBPnJJ8cSJP7gtUbet1IpVtYKj5TgTYsgmi-1QlR_C78WrLKgHy6PRM49G82bZW6CXABw-1LcP9dUm1eqSUiEYvMjOQJWQMyrLl8_q0-w8hO-UcpDAX2WnDASnEtRZ9qc2sceInqyawUQ3jeQL-jAH8glDJPfYOmsGsu3Rm_0TcSPZJArHGMhXF3uySbALMTXIKnqX0LVrvBuOLjO2pJ7Gb8nlfiG5QeMjWRs3zB4_HqzkISHTzv3Glqzub-sV2R4sr7OTzgwB3xz_i2y7vtrWN_nd5-sE3eW2ULLKK9YYSTlTXVlVVtpOsYKJVtgOSwNSclt1ltMGOsmhqKSginLTdqpsmqYQ7CJ7v2j3fvo5pyX1zgWLafsRpznoIh1KcRAVTygsqPVTCB47vfduZ_yTBqoPaegljVQrvaSRZt4d9XOzw_b_xL_zJ6BcgMdpSBmEH8P8iF73aIbYawqMiVKxvKCgoKCU5unRiv0FUOmWCA</recordid><startdate>201912</startdate><enddate>201912</enddate><creator>Kuck, Karl-Heinz</creator><creator>Merkely, Béla</creator><creator>Zahn, Ralf</creator><creator>Arentz, Thomas</creator><creator>Seidl, Karlheinz</creator><creator>Schlüter, Michael</creator><creator>Tilz, Roland Richard</creator><creator>Piorkowski, Christopher</creator><creator>Gellér, László</creator><creator>Kleemann, Thomas</creator><creator>Hindricks, Gerhard</creator><general>American Heart Association, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201912</creationdate><title>Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial</title><author>Kuck, Karl-Heinz ; Merkely, Béla ; Zahn, Ralf ; Arentz, Thomas ; Seidl, Karlheinz ; Schlüter, Michael ; Tilz, Roland Richard ; Piorkowski, Christopher ; Gellér, László ; Kleemann, Thomas ; Hindricks, Gerhard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2985-53ba80639f455c8cf93237d7cfe4a1886c5fc60b1f86125870906adf94bbb273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kuck, Karl-Heinz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merkely, Béla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahn, Ralf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arentz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidl, Karlheinz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlüter, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tilz, Roland Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piorkowski, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gellér, László</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleemann, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hindricks, Gerhard</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kuck, Karl-Heinz</au><au>Merkely, Béla</au><au>Zahn, Ralf</au><au>Arentz, Thomas</au><au>Seidl, Karlheinz</au><au>Schlüter, Michael</au><au>Tilz, Roland Richard</au><au>Piorkowski, Christopher</au><au>Gellér, László</au><au>Kleemann, Thomas</au><au>Hindricks, Gerhard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial</atitle><jtitle>Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology</jtitle><addtitle>Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol</addtitle><date>2019-12</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e007731</spage><epage>e007731</epage><pages>e007731-e007731</pages><issn>1941-3084</issn><issn>1941-3149</issn><eissn>1941-3084</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND:Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. METHODS:Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. RESULTS:Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%–11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%–10.3%; P=0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients. CONCLUSIONS:The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URLhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT00652522.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Heart Association, Inc</pub><pmid>31760819</pmid><doi>10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1941-3084
ispartof Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2019-12, Vol.12 (12), p.e007731-e007731
issn 1941-3084
1941-3149
1941-3084
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2317961756
source American Heart Association Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
title Catheter Ablation Versus Best Medical Therapy in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: The Randomized AMICA Trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T09%3A29%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Catheter%20Ablation%20Versus%20Best%20Medical%20Therapy%20in%20Patients%20With%20Persistent%20Atrial%20Fibrillation%20and%20Congestive%20Heart%20Failure:%20The%20Randomized%20AMICA%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Circulation.%20Arrhythmia%20and%20electrophysiology&rft.au=Kuck,%20Karl-Heinz&rft.date=2019-12&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e007731&rft.epage=e007731&rft.pages=e007731-e007731&rft.issn=1941-3084&rft.eissn=1941-3084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2317961756%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2317961756&rft_id=info:pmid/31760819&rfr_iscdi=true