Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Heart Journal Open logoLink to European Heart Journal Open
. 2026 Feb 18;6(2):oeag020. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag020

‘Ablate and pace’ reduces mortality in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis

Christian Lewinter 1,2,3,✉,b, John G F Cleland 4, Eslem Sögütlü 5, Torsten Holm Nielsen 6,7, Hannes Hagström 8, Lars Køber 9, Martin LeWinter 10, Robert Edfors 11, Cecilia Linde 12,13, Frieder Braunschweig 14,15
Editor: Christian de Chillou
PMCID: PMC12988461  PMID: 41835811

Abstract

Aims

We compared the effects of ‘ablate and pace’ to pharmacological therapy on mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), with or without heart failure (HF).

Methods and results

Articles were identified by searching PubMed, Central, and Embase until 30 June 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ‘ablate and pace' with pharmacological therapy and investigating outcomes of mortality and LVEF in patients with AF. An exclusion criterion was lack of a parallel study design. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the mean difference (MD) in LVEF. Endpoints were assessed through meta-analyses computing relative risks (RRs) and MDs. The clinical diagnosis of HF was used to distinguish between patients with and without HF. Initially, 3837 studies were identified, of which 24 (n = 4292 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 17 (n = 3261 patients) that focused on HF. Follow-up time varied from 3 to 96 months. Only in HF patients, ‘ablate and pace' reduced mortality significantly with a risk reduction of 36% [RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49–0.85; P < 0.01; n = 10] as compared with pharmacological therapy. Except for two studies, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was the chosen pace mode. The mortality reduction was independent of study design: RCTs (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18–0.94; P = 0.04; n = 2) and observational studies (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.90; P = 0.01; n = 8). ‘Ablate and pace’ and pharmacological therapy were similar for the LVEF outcome (MD, 1.1; 95% CI, −1.6–3.8; P = 0.39; n = 16), which was independent of both HF and study designs (results not shown).

Conclusion

‘Ablate and CRT’ reduced mortality in HF patients as compared with pharmacological therapy, which was supported by statistical associations in observational studies. A single RCT corroborated the finding.

Keywords: Ablate and pace, Atrial fibrillation, Heart failure, Meta-analysis, All-cause mortality, Left ventricular ejection fraction

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Introduction

When to set in with ‘ablate and pace’—atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker—and which patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) will benefit most are unidentified. The need for better symptom control in medically refractory AF supports an ‘ablate and pace’ strategy.1 ‘Ablate and pace’ allows for full-time rate control and ventricular rhythm regularization. The most recent ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (APAF) randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 133 heart failure patients with symptomatic, permanent AF without bundle branch block (BBB). The trial demonstrated that ‘ablate and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)’ reduces mortality compared to pharmacological therapy.2 Yet, the influence of CRT, permanent AF duration, and symptoms on ‘ablate and pace’ outcomes remains uncertain. Mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) outcomes may illuminate such uncertainties since they report hard clinical and physiological endpoints, respectively. Here, we present a comparison of ‘ablate and pace’ vs. pharmacological therapy in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies of AF patients. Our predefined outcomes are (i) mortality and (ii) LVEF and will include heart failure status too. Secondly, we will assess how CRT, permanent AF duration, and BBB influence on the outcomes.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklists to report on observational studies and RCTs, respectively.3,4 We prespecified a protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022344232).

Search methods

Broad search terms—‘atrioventricular ablation’ OR ‘atrioventricular junction ablation’ AND ‘pacing’ OR pacemaker’—were separately performed in PubMed, Central, and Embase with a search cut-off date of 30 June 2024. By the same search terms, we screened previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews, guidelines, and statements from cardiovascular society meetings. Abstracts from congresses were not assessed due to their less detailed descriptions of research methods. Titles and abstracts were read first and if found relevant, the full article was reviewed. The search process was undertaken independently by two reviewers (C.L. and E.S.).

Study and data collection

Observational studies and randomized trials were included for analysis if they conducted a parallel design comparing an intervention group of ‘ablate and pace’ with a control group having pharmacological therapy. An ethics committee approval was not applied due to non-disclosure of patients’ identity. Studies, including patients planned for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were excluded. Endpoints at study follow-up were (i) all-cause mortality and (ii) LVEF (%). Left ventricular ejection fraction was enumerated as the mean difference (MD) of the value measured at the beginning and at follow-up of each study. Left ventricular ejection fraction measurement included only echocardiography. Study details, including participant numbers and observation length, were collected based on the majority principle when categorized as binary. Baseline characteristics of age, gender, LVEF, BBB, heart failure status, symptoms, permanent AF, pacemaker (PM) subtype, and history of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were also collected. Finally, safety, including side effects of prescribed atrioventricular blocking drugs and PM complications, were tabulated.

Study selection was made independently by two reviewers (C.L. and E.S.). In case of disagreement between the reviewers that could not be resolved, a third author (F.B.) made the decision.

Outcomes

Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and LVEF (%), analysed separately for patients with and without heart failure. For this meta-analysis, we included studies enrolling both populations. In studies with heart failure, patients were required to have symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, defined as New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II–IV symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy, an LVEF < 40% confirmed by echocardiography, and evidence of structural heart disease and/or ventricular conduction delay when applicable. Minor deviations were accepted if the study population was clearly described as having moderate to severe systolic heart failure based on clinical assessment and imaging. Studies without heart failure were also included to enable comparison of outcomes between these groups.

Statistics

Discrete data were presented as percentages (%), and continuous data were reported as means and standard deviations (SDs). The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were defined as the mean ± 1.96 × standard error (SE) in a normal distribution. The SD was the SE × √n where n was the number of study participants. All meta-analyses were undertaken through a random effect model due to presumption of moderate to high heterogeneity in observational studies and RCTs for inclusion. An estimate of heterogeneity among studies was reported as the I2 for each analysis.

A Mantel–Haenszel inverse method calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for all-cause mortality. A DerSimonian model based on inverse weighting calculated the LVEF MD between groups as the change from baseline to the end of the follow-up time. Test statistics and 95% CIs were adjusted according to the Hartung and Knapp method.5

P < 0.05 were considered significant.

The Meta programme in R statistics was applied for the data calculations.6

Details of the sensitivity analysis and risk of bias can be found in the Supplementary material.

Results

Search result

Twenty-four studies were selected for the final meta-analysis from the initial data search (Supplementary material).2,7–29 Of these, 17 studies included heart failure patients (Table 1). We did not find complementary studies from previous meta-analyses. No additional studies were found when newest guidelines and cardiovascular society meetings were investigated. Endpoints of mortality were measured in 14 studies and the LVEF MDs in 16, respectively (six studies measured both). Randomized controlled trials made up four of the studies.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics

Study Year RCT No. Follow-up Outcome Women (%) Age LVEF (%) CHF IHD (%) PM AVBD Permanent QOL Symptoms BBB
Brignole 1997 Yes 43 6 LVEF 53 65 59 No 26 DDD CCB No Yes Yes No
Brignole 1998 Yes 66 34 Both 53 72 44 Yes 38 VVI CCB Yes Yes Yes No
Brignole 2021 Yes 133 29 Both 47 73 41 Yes 31 CRT BB Yes No Yes No
Dong 2010 No 154 25 Both 14 71 23 Yes 58 CRT BB na No No Yes
Eisen 2013 No 66 24 Dead 21 70 24 Yes 72 CRT BB No No Yes Yes
Ferreiraa 2008 No 53 6 Dead 6 69 25 Yes 53 CRT BB na No Yes Yes
Garciaa 2016 No 635 96 Dead 49 75 44 Yes 36 VVI BB No No Yes No
Gasparini 2006 No 162 48 LVEF 14 66 26 Yes 37 CRT BB Yes No Yes Yes
Gasparini 2008 No 243 34 Dead 18 66 26 Yes 40 CRT BB Yes No Yes Yes
Gasparini 2013 No 1338 37 Both 15 69 26 Yes 37 CRT BB Yes No Yes Yes
Himmel 2012 No 46 12 LVEF 14 69 24 Yes 63 CRT BB Yes No Yes Yes
Jedrzejczyk-Patej 2014 No 80 36 Dead 9 60 24 Yes 46 CRT BB No No Yes Yes
Lim 2007 No 33 65 Both 24 74 58 No 42 VVI D Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nagamoto 2011 No 28 6 Dead 57 75 66 No 29 VVI na No Yes Yes No
Natale 1999 No 46 6 LVEF 33 69 39 Yes 24 VVI CCB Yes Yes Yes No
Ozcana 2001 No 579 36 Dead 43 68 48 No 41 DDD D No No Yes No
Schütte 2009 No 36 11 LVEF 14 70 24 Yes 68 CRT BB Yes No Yes Yes
Tolosano 2008 No 126 12 LVEF 19 69 26 Yes 31 CRT D Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tolosano 2012 No 46 12 LVEF 29 68 25 Yes 32 CRT BB Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tolosano 2013 No 155 12 Both 19 69 25 Yes 36 CRT BB Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ueng 2001 No 47 12 LVEF 30 66 45 No na VVI na Yes Yes Yes No
Wanga 2019 No 75 12 LVEF 25 68 36 Yes 18 HPSP BB Yes No Yes No
Weerasooriya 2003 Yes 99 12 Both 30 68 56 No 40 VVI na Yes Yes Yes No
Wong 1996 No 18 3 LVEF 50 67 45 No na VVI yes No No na No
Open in a new tab

Detailed distributions are provided in the Supplementary material.

RCT, randomized controlled trials; No., number of patients; follow-up is expressed in months; age is expressed in years; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; IHD, ischaemic heart disease; PM, pacemaker; VVI, right single-chamber lead; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; DDD, right double-chamber lead; HPSP, His–Purkinje system pacing; AVBD, atrioventricular blocking drug; CCB, calcium channel blocker; BB, beta-blocker; D, digoxin; na, non-applicable; Permanent, permanent atrial fibrillation; QOL, quality of life outcomes; BBB, bundle branch block; CHF, chronic heart failure.

aStudies marked with an asterisk included heterogeneous samples comprising both CRT and DDD(R)/VVI patients.

Baseline characteristics

A total of 4292 AF patients were included in the meta-analysis out of which 3261 had heart failure. The mean follow-up time was 6–96 months for patients with heart failure (without heart failure, 3–65 months). The mean age of included studies varied between 60 and 75 years in heart failure patients as compared with 65–75 years in patients without heart failure (Table 1). The proportion of women with heart failure was 6–49% (without heart failure, 24–57%). Among studies with available data (n = 22), permanent AF was reported in 12 studies enrolling patients with heart failure and in three studies enrolling patients without heart failure. The mean baseline LVEF ranged from 23 to 44% in heart failure patients (without heart failure, 41 to 66%). Ischaemic heart disease was reported in 18–72% among heart failure patients (without heart failure, 26–42%). In heart failure patients, CRT was reported in all but four studies (84%) (without heart failure, zero studies).

Primary outcomes

Mortality

Mortality outcomes were reported for a total of 3665 AF patients across 14 studies, with a mean follow-up ranging from 6 to 96 months. The forest plot (Figure 1) summarizes mortality data comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 1609) with pharmacological therapy (n = 2056). Overall, 329 (20%) of patients in the ‘ablate and pace’ group died, compared with 573 (28%) in the pharmacological therapy group. Pooled analysis demonstrated that ‘ablate and pace’ was associated with a significantly lower RR of mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54–0.89; I² = 46%; P < 0.01), particularly among patients with heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was used in 826 (52%) of patients in the ablate and pace group.

Figure 1.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mortality for all included studies, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ ( n = 1609; 63.8% with cardiac resynchronization therapy) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 2056). Hazard ratios were presented as relative risk. RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; follow-up, months; AP, ablate and pace; PT, pharmacological therapy; relative risk (RR).

In the subset of eight observational studies involving heart failure patients, mortality was 22% in the ‘ablate and pace’ group (n = 1076) compared to 27% in the pharmacological therapy group (n = 1648), yielding a RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55–0.90; Figure 2). Two RCTs enrolling a total of 199 patients with heart failure reported mortality rates of 10% in the ‘ablate and pace’ group vs. 25% in the pharmacological therapy group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18–0.94).

Figure 2.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mortality for the heart failure population, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 1178) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 1745). RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; follow-up, months; RR, relative risk; AP, ablate and pace; PT, pharmacological therapy.

Among patients without heart failure, four observational studies included 382 patients treated with ‘ablate and pace’ and 261 patients treated with pharmacological therapy. In the pooled analysis, mortality occurred in 13% of both groups. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two treatment strategies (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.49–1.72; Figure 3). Similarly, a single RCT involving 99 patients without heart failure reported no significant difference in mortality between the ‘ablate and pace’ group (4%) and the pharmacological therapy group (2%) (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 0.19–21.8).

Figure 3.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mortality for the population without heart failure, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 431) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 311). RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; follow-up, months; RR, relative risk; AP, ablate and pace; PT, pharmacological therapy.

Left ventricular ejection fraction

A total of 2479 AF patients were included across 16 studies reporting follow-up LVEF, with 949 (38.3%) in the ‘ablate and pace’ group—734 (77.3%) of whom received CRT—and 1530 (61.7%) in the pharmacological therapy group. Of these studies, three were RCTs including 208 patients, and 13 were observational studies comprising 2271 patients. Overall, ‘ablate and pace’ was associated with a non-significant improvement in LVEF compared with pharmacological therapy (MD, 1.1; 95% CI, −1.6–3.8; P = 0.39; I² = 72%; Figure 4). In observational studies, there was a trend towards greater LVEF improvement with ‘ablate and pace’, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, the three RCTs reported a neutral difference in LVEF between treatment strategies.

Figure 4.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mean differences in left ventricular ejection fraction for all included studies, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 949; 77.3% with cardiac resynchronization therapy) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 1530). MD, mean difference; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction.

A total of 2250 patients with AF and heart failure were identified from 11 studies reporting follow-up LVEF values, with mean follow-up durations ranging from 6 to 48 months. In observational studies, the LVEF difference between the ‘ablate and pace’ group (n = 807) and the pharmacological therapy group (n = 1377) was not statistically significant (MD, 1.1; 95% CI, −2.9–5.1). One RCT compared LVEF between patients treated with ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 32) and pharmacological therapy (n = 34), also reporting no significant difference (MD, 4.0; 95% CI, −4.1–12.1; Figure 5).

Figure 5.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mean differences in left ventricular ejection fraction for the heart failure population, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 839) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 1411). RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; follow-up, months; MD, mean difference; AP, ablate and pace; PT, pharmacological therapy.

An additional 229 AF patients without heart failure were included across five studies. In three observational studies, LVEF was similar between the ‘ablate and pace’ group (n = 39) and the pharmacological therapy group (n = 48) (MD, 2.8; 95% CI, −2.0–7.7). Likewise, two RCTs comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 71) to pharmacological therapy (n = 71) showed no significant difference in LVEF (MD, −4.1; 95% CI, −30.8–22.5; Figure 6).

Figure 6.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of mean differences in left ventricular ejection fraction for the population without heart failure, comparing ‘ablate and pace’ (n = 110) vs. pharmacological therapy (n = 119). RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; follow-up, months; MD, mean difference; AP, ablate and pace; PT, pharmacological therapy.

Sensitivity analysis and risk of bias

The Supplementary material contains the sensitivity analyses including temporal analyses of the primary outcomes and a risk of bias assessment.

Discussion

‘Ablate and pace’ is associated with reduced mortality compared with pharmacological therapy in patients with heart failure and predominantly permanent AF, with this association confirmed in sensitivity analyses limited to follow-up periods exceeding 12 months. The results were largely based on observational studies (n = 8), which corroborated the few RCTs (n = 2) on the topic. In the same comparison of ‘ablate and pace’ with pharmacological therapy, the LVEF was neutral at follow-up and was independent of heart failure status.

Mortality

Heart failure patients with predominantly permanent AF experience a mortality reduction with the ‘ablate and pace’ strategy compared to pharmacological therapy, particularly beyond 12 months of follow-up. This is supported by one of two RCTs by Brignole et al., with key differences between the studies being the pacing modality—CRT vs. right ventricular pace (RVP)—and sample size (APAF 2021: n = 133 vs. 1998 RCT: n = 66).2,8 We hypothesize that full-time rate control and rhythm regularization through ‘ablate and pace’ may slow heart failure progression by attenuating renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system activation and enhancing myocardial metabolism.30,31 This is supported by findings from the RATE-HF RCT, where improved rate control with digoxin in AF patients was associated with significant N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) reduction, a biomarker that independently predicts reduced mortality.32,33

In contrast, among AF patients without heart failure—none of whom received CRT, as these studies (from 2001, 2003, 2007, and 2011) predated clear guideline recommendations for CRT in patients with high pacing burden and preserved LVEF—no mortality difference was observed between ‘ablate and pace’ and drug treatment. Notably, guidelines first addressed CRT for high pacing burden and reduced LVEF in 2012, and the 2022 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) guidelines now extend this to select patients with LVEF > 40%.34,35 The low baseline mortality risk and limited events likely explain the lack of treatment effect; larger, longer trials would be needed to confirm any benefit in this population.36

This suggests that AF-related mortality in heart failure patients may be mediated by uncontrolled rate and irregular rhythm contributing to heart failure progression—a mechanism less relevant in patients without heart failure, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, in the long-term management of AF without heart failure, ‘ablate and pace’ may be indicated in specific scenarios: (i) failure or contraindication of PVI, (ii) prevention or reversal of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, and (iii) persistent symptomatic AF with uncontrolled ventricular rate despite optimal medical therapy.

Left ventricular ejection fraction

We found LVEF to be neutral in the comparison of ‘ablate and pace’ with pharmacological therapy and independent of heart failure.

In AF patients, we expect medical interventions to have a neutral effect on the LVEF unless linked with acute conditions. Examples of acute conditions with potentially reversible LVEF declines are tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, Takotsubo syndrome, and acute myocardial infarction.37,38 In our meta-analysis, patients suffered mainly from permanent AF where pharmacological therapy failed to achieve optimal rate control and rhythm regularization, but none of the included studies were linked to acute conditions.

In AF patients without heart failure, we also expected a neutral LVEF outcome due to either mildly reduced or steady LVEF at baseline.

‘Ablate and pace’

Our findings suggest that the combination of ‘ablate and pace’ therapy may reduce mortality in patients with heart failure and AF by providing consistent rate control and rhythm regularization. This aligns with evidence from animal studies dating back to the 1960s, where swine and canine models demonstrated that sustained rapid pacing induces tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, characterized by reduced LVEF and myocardial remodelling.39,40 These results support the rationale for rate control strategies in this population. Given this pathophysiology, the modest or absent improvement in LVEF observed in our study is not unexpected, as the primary benefit of pacing after ablation may be through haemodynamic optimization rather than direct myocardial recovery.

Historically, CRT responses have been shown in heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and BBB, as demonstrated in Cleland et al.’s 2014 meta-analysis.39 However, RCTs have demonstrated the superiority of CRT in heart failure patients with AF, including the BLOCK (which included 53% AF patients), the Budapest, and APAF (2011) trials.41–43

Based on our analysis, we conclude that LVEF may not be a reliable marker for the success of ‘ablate and pace’ therapy in patients with heart failure and AF, as no significant improvement in LVEF was observed.

Other meta-analyses

In a meta-analysis from 2012, Stavrakis et al.44 compared ‘ablate and CRT’ with ‘ablate and RVP’ from five RCTs, which enrolled symptomatic AF patients (<50% with BBB). They found mortality neutral in the comparison of the two interventions and reported a significant mean LVEF difference of 2.0 favouring CRT. The LVEF improvement was weighted 60% on the APAF RCT from 2011 in their meta-analysis.43 The APAF RCT itself was not able to demonstrate a significant LVEF difference between CRT and RVP. We suggest that a CRT response remains unlikely in AF, since a marginal mean LVEF improvement and a neutral mortality are insufficient to consider a CRT response. An earlier meta-analysis on observational studies by Wood et al.45 reported significant improvements in all their outcomes after ‘ablate and pace’, including quality of life and the LVEF, with the exception of fractional shortening. The cross-over design of their included studies meant that patients acted as their own controls, thereby increasing the risk of a placebo effect.

A meta-analysis from 2014 by Yin et al.,46 which included only patients with permanent AF, LVEF < 35%, and BBB, demonstrated a significant 37% reduction in mortality risk in the ‘ablate and pace’ group compared with pharmacological therapy alone; all patients received CRT. They concluded that ‘ablate and pace’ significantly reduced the risk of CRT non-response in patients with inadequate biventricular pacing (≤90%), whereas in those with sufficient pacing (>90%), ablation conferred no additional benefit. Thus, suboptimal pacing identified a subgroup in whom ablation was particularly beneficial to achieve effective CRT.

Implications

In leading guidelines, ‘ablate and pace’ is indicated for symptomatic relief in medically refractory AF independent of the LVEF.1 Our meta-analysis suggests that ‘ablate and pace’ reduces mortality in AF patients with heart failure through full-time rate control and rhythm regularization. Cardiac resynchronization therapy remains the preferred PM device due to the established literature on PM-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with right ventricular pacing.47

A priori, PVI would be expected to be superior to ‘ablate and pace’ in AF patients due to improved chronotropic function and atrioventricular synchrony, where ‘ablate and pace’ affords improved chronotropic function at the cost of PM dependency.

Both the CASTLE RCTs bolstered PVI superiority: PVI improved survival and heart function as compared with pharmacological therapy in AF patients with heart failure.48,49

The PABA-HF RCT demonstrated significant superiority of PVI vs. ‘ablate and CRT-D’ in 81 AF patients with heart failure in terms of mortality.50 Selecting the right approach −rate or rhythm control—is crucial. Including asymptomatic patients with permanent AF and moderate to severe heart failure in future RCTs could provide valuable insights for investigating ‘ablate and pace’ therapies. They may compare His-bundle pacing with CRT to assess left ventricular dyssynchrony improvement.51 Finally, AF patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and medically refractory AF may benefit from ‘ablate and CRT upgrade’ if they suffered from inappropriate ICD shocks in the past.52

Limitations

The take-home message of mortality reduction more than 12 months after ‘ablate and pace’ in heart failure patients with predominantly permanent AF is limited by the low number of RCTs in our meta-analysis. Thus, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines’ recent Class 2A recommendation and Level of Evidence B stands in line with our results.53 Here, observational study results may add unknown confounder bias to the outcomes and therefore false signalling. Also, patient selection bias is a risk in observational studies. In our meta-analysis, we acknowledge that more AF symptoms possibly favoured ‘ablate and pace’ and even cross-over in the RCTs. This, unfortunately, leaves the question open in terms of the mortality reduction in less symptomatic patients with heart failure and permanent AF, who make up the larger part of the AF patient population with heart failure by far. Our meta-analysis therefore reveals statistical associations, which so far have been tested for causality in four RCTs. Two of the RCTs corroborated our observational findings: ‘ablate and pace’ decreases mortality as compared with pharmacological therapy in heart failure patients with permanent AF. Another limitation of our meta-analysis is the use of an LVEF threshold of <40% to define the heart failure population, which may have led to misclassification in patients with transiently reduced LVEF. However, we consider this risk minimal, as patients with AF and moderately reduced LVEF typically have elevated NT-proBNP levels, supporting the presence of true systolic heart failure.54

It is also acknowledged that AF symptoms may have overlapped with heart failure symptoms in the included studies. From a clinical perspective, the optimal timing of ‘ablate and pace’ in patients with permanent AF and heart failure remains to be determined. We could neither establish a separate impact of few paroxysmal AF patients on mortality nor identify specific antiarrhythmic pharmacological therapy in a sound way. This contributes uncertainty to their impact on the outcomes. The Castle HF and HTx RCTs enrolled patients with both permanent and paroxysmal AF and made no constraints to antiarrhythmic pharmacological therapy due to the missing evidence of their distinct treatment effects. We suggest that symptomatic relief and reduced mortality can be achieved in both permanent and paroxysmal AF patients with heart failure through ‘ablate and pace’ but that it should be targeted to elderly patients where PVI is assessed as unfeasible.

Despite missing data being a caveat of our meta-analysis, sensitivity analyses corroborated the primary analyses. Even the imputed standard deviations of the LVEF MD provided robust results. In addition, the observational studies and the few RCTs included found similar pooled results in their assessment of ‘ablate and pace’ compared with pharmacological therapy.

The moderate to high heterogeneity observed was mainly attributed to the inclusion of observational studies, which were more prevalent than RCTs. Additionally, semiquantitative echocardiographic measurements of LVEF contributed to substantial heterogeneity. Given that LVEF plays a key role in heart failure diagnosis, it could influence the magnitude of mortality outcomes. To minimize bias, random effects meta-analyses were performed, and interim analyses showed no significant differences in primary outcomes between study designs.

Conclusions

‘Ablate and pace’ reduced mortality in patients as compared with pharmacological therapy, which was supported by statistical associations in observational studies. One RCT out of two corroborated the finding. Thus, more confirmatory RCTs are welcome. Supplementary material is available online.

Supplementary Material

oeag020_Supplementary_Data
oeag020_supplementary_data.docx (5.5MB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Professor Martin Bland, former PhD supervisor, for the mentorship and training in statistics, particularly in methods of meta-analysis.

Contributor Information

Christian Lewinter, Heart Centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Eugeniavägen 3, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, G12 8TA Glasgow, UK; Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

John G F Cleland, School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, G12 8TA Glasgow, UK.

Eslem Sögütlü, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Torsten Holm Nielsen, Danish Medicines Agency, Axel Heides Gade 1, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark; Department of Haematology, Zealand University Hospital, Sygehusvej 10, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.

Hannes Hagström, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Lars Køber, Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

Martin LeWinter, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 215 North Main Street, White River Junction, VT 05009, USA.

Robert Edfors, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Cecilia Linde, Heart Centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Eugeniavägen 3, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Frieder Braunschweig, Heart Centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Eugeniavägen 3, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 6, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

Data availability

The data underlying this article are derived from published RCTs and observational studies identified through systematic searches of electronic bibliographic databases. No new primary data were generated. All source data are available in the cited articles. The dataset generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at European Heart Journal Open online.

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding.

References

  • 1. Hindricks  G, Potpara  T, Dagres  N, Arbelo  E, Bax  JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist  C, Boriani  G, Castella  M, Dan  G-A, Dilaveris  PE, Fauchier  L, Filippatos  G, Kalman  JM, La Meir  M, Lane  DA, Lebeau  J-P, Lettino  M, Lip  GYH, Pinto  FJ, Thomas  GN, Valgimigli  M, Van Gelder  IC, Van Putte  BP, Watkins  CL, Kirchhof  P, Kühne  M, Aboyans  V, Ahlsson  A, Balsam  P, Bauersachs  J, Benussi  S, Brandes  A, Braunschweig  F, Camm  AJ, Capodanno  D, Casadei  B, Conen  D, Crijns  HJGM, Delgado  V, Dobrev  D, Drexel  H, Eckardt  L, Fitzsimons  D, Folliguet  T, Gale  CP, Gorenek  B, Haeusler  KG, Heidbuchel  H, Iung  B, Katus  HA, Kotecha  D, Landmesser  U, Leclercq  C, Lewis  BS, Mascherbauer  J, Merino  JL, Merkely  B, Mont  L, Mueller  C, Nagy  KV, Oldgren  J, Pavlović  N, Pedretti  RFE, Petersen  SE, Piccini  JP, Popescu  BA, Pürerfellner  H, Richter  DJ, Roffi  M, Rubboli  A, Scherr  D, Schnabel  RB, Simpson  IA, Shlyakhto  E, Sinner  MF, Steffel  J, Sousa-Uva  M, Suwalski  P, Svetlosak  M, Touyz  RM, Dagres  N, Arbelo  E, Bax  JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist  C, Boriani  G, Castella  M, Dan  G-A, Dilaveris  PE, Fauchier  L, Filippatos  G, Kalman  JM, La Meir  M, Lane  DA, Lebeau  J-P, Lettino  M, Lip  GYH, Pinto  FJ, Neil Thomas  G, Valgimigli  M, Van Gelder  IC, Watkins  CL, Delassi  T, Sisakian  HS, Scherr  D, Chasnoits  A, Pauw  MD, Smajić  E, Shalganov  T, Avraamides  P, Kautzner  J, Gerdes  C, Alaziz  AA, Kampus  P, Raatikainen  P, Boveda  S, Papiashvili  G, Eckardt  L, Vassilikos  V, Csanádi  Z, Arnar  DO, Galvin  J, Barsheshet  A, Caldarola  P, Rakisheva  A, Bytyçi  I, Kerimkulova  A, Kalejs  O, Njeim  M, Puodziukynas  A, Groben  L, Sammut  MA, Grosu  A, Boskovic  A, Moustaghfir  A, Groot  Nd, Poposka  L, Anfinsen  O-G, Mitkowski  PP, Cavaco  DM, Siliste  C, Mikhaylov  EN, Bertelli  L, Kojic  D, Hatala  R, Fras  Z, Arribas  F, Juhlin  T, Sticherling  C, Abid  L, Atar  I, Sychov  O, Bates  MGD, Zakirov  NU. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J  2021;42:373–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Brignole  M, Pentimalli  F, Palmisano  P, Landolina  M, Quartieri  F, Occhetta  E, Calò  L, Mascia  G, Mont  L, Vernooy  K, van Dijk  V, Allaart  C, Fauchier  L, Gasparini  M, Parati  G, Soranna  D, Rienstra  M, Van Gelder  IC. AV junction ablation and cardiac resynchronization for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS: the APAF-CRT mortality trial. Eur Heart J  2021;42:4731–4739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Page  MJ, McKenzie  JE, Bossuyt  PM, Boutron  I, Hoffmann  TC, Mulrow  CD, Shamseer  L, Tetzlaff  JM, Akl  EA, Brennan  SE, Chou  R, Glanville  J, Grimshaw  JM, Hróbjartsson  A, Lalu  MM, Li  T, Loder  EW, Mayo-Wilson  E, McDonald  S, McGuinness  LA, Stewart  LA, Thomas  J, Tricco  AC, Welch  VA, Whiting  P, Moher  D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ  2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Stroup  DF. Meta-analysis of observational studies in EpidemiologyA proposal for reporting. JAMA  2000;283:2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Cornell  JE, Mulrow  CD, Localio  R, Stack  CB, Meibohm  AR, Guallar  E, Goodman  SN. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med  2014;160:267–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Schwarzer  G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News  2007;7:40–45. https://www.r-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Brignole  M, Gianfranchi  L, Menozzi  C, Alboni  P, Musso  G, Bongiorni  MG, Gasparini  M, Raviele  A, Lolli  G, Paparella  N, Acquarone  S. Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and DDDR mode-switching pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with severely symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled study. Circulation  1997;96:2617–2624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Brignole  M, Menozzi  C, Gianfranchi  L, Musso  G, Mureddu  R, Bottoni  N, Lolli  G. Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, controlled study. Circulation  1998;98:953–960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Dong  K, Shen  W-K, Powell  BD, Dong  Y-X, Rea  RF, Friedman  PA, Hodge  DO, Wiste  HJ, Webster  T, Hayes  DL, Cha  Y-M. Atrioventricular nodal ablation predicts survival benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm  2010;7:1240–1245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Eisen  A, Nevzorov  R, Goldenberg  G, Kuznitz  H, Porter  A, Golovtziner  G, Strasberg  B, Haim  M. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: a 2-year follow-up study: CRT IN PATIENTS WITH AF. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol  2013;36:872–877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Ferreira  AM, Adragao  P, Cavaco  DM, Candeias  R, Morgado  FB, Santos  KR, Santos  E, Silva  JA. Benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in atrial fibrillation patients vs. Patients in sinus rhythm: the role of atrioventricular junction ablation. Europace  2008;10:809–815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Garcia  B, Clementy  N, Benhenda  N, Pierre  B, Babuty  D, Olshansky  B, Fauchier  L. Mortality after atrioventricular nodal radiofrequency catheter ablation with permanent ventricular pacing in atrial fibrillation: outcomes from a controlled nonrandomized study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol  2016;9:e003993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Gasparini  M, Auricchio  A, Metra  M, Regoli  F, Fantoni  C, Lamp  B, Curnis  A, Vogt  J, Klersy  C. Long-term survival in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: the importance of performing atrio-ventricular junction ablation in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J  2008;29:1644–1652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Gasparini  M, Auricchio  A, Regoli  F, Fantoni  C, Kawabata  M, Galimberti  P, Pini  D, Ceriotti  C, Gronda  E, Klersy  C, Fratini  S, Klein  HH. Four-year efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy on exercise tolerance and disease progression. J Am Coll Cardiol  2006;48:734–743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Gasparini  M, Leclercq  C, Lunati  M, Landolina  M, Auricchio  A, Santini  M, Boriani  G, Lamp  B, Proclemer  A, Curnis  A, Klersy  C, Leyva  F. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1:500–507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Himmel  F, Reppel  M, Mortensen  K, Schunkert  H, Bode  F. A strategy to achieve CRT response in permanent atrial fibrillation without obligatory atrioventricular node ablation: CRT IN PERMANENT ATRIAL FIBRILLATION. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol  2012;35:943–947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Jędrzejczyk-Patej  E, Lenarczyk  R, Pruszkowska  P, Kowalski  O, Mazurek  M, Sokal  A, Boidol  J, Woźniak  A, Pluta  S, Szulik  M, Liberska  A, Kalarus  Z. Long-term outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy are worse in patients who require atrioventricular junction ablation for atrial fibrillation than in those with sinus rhythm. Cardiol J  2014;21:309–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Lim  K-T, Davis  MJE, Powell  A, Arnolda  L, Moulden  K, Bulsara  M, Weerasooriya  R. Ablate and pace strategy for atrial fibrillation: long-term outcome of AIRCRAFT trial. Europace  2007;9:498–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Nagamoto  Y, Inage  T, Yoshida  T, Takeuchi  T, Gondo  T, Fukuda  Y, Takii  E, Murotani  K, Imaizumi  T. Atrioventricular nodal ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs after permanent pacemaker implantation for bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome. Heart Vessels  2012;27:174–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Natale  A, Zimerman  L, Tomassoni  G, Newby  K, Leonelli  F, Fanelli  R, Beheiry  S, Pisano  E. AV node ablation and pacemaker implantation after withdrawal of effective rate-control medications for chronic atrial fibrillation: effect on quality of life and exercise performance. Pacing Clin Electro  1999;22:1634–1639. [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Ozcan  C, Jahangir  A, Friedman  PA, Patel  PJ, Munger  TM, Rea  RF, Lloyd  MA, Packer  DL, Hodge  DO, Hayes  DL, Gersh  BJ, Hammill  SC, Shen  W-K. Long-term survival after ablation of the atrioventricular node and implantation of a permanent pacemaker in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med  2001;344:1043–1051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Schütte  F, Lüdorff  G, Grove  R, Kranig  W, Thale  J. Atrioventricular node ablation is not a prerequisite for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Cardiol J  2009;16:246–249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Tolosana  JM, Trucco  E, Khatib  M, Doltra  A, Borras  R, Castel  MÁ, Berruezo  A, Arbelo  E, Sitges  M, Matas  M, Guasch  E, Brugada  J, Mont  L. Complete atrioventricular block does not reduce long-term mortality in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. European J of Heart Fail  2013;15:1412–1418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Tolosana  JM, Arnau  AM, Madrid  AH, Macias  A, Lozano  IF, Osca  J, Quesada  A, Toquero  J, Francés  RM, Bolao  IG, Berruezo  A, Sitges  M, Alcalá  MG, Brugada  J, Mont  L. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Is it mandatory to ablate the atrioventricular junction to obtain a good response?  European J of Heart Fail  2012;14:635–641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Tolosana  JM, Hernandez Madrid  A, Brugada  J, Sitges  M, Garcia Bolao  I, Fernandez Lozano  I, Martinez Ferrer  J, Quesada  A, Macias  A, Marin  W, Escudier  JM, Gomez  AA, Gimenez Alcala  M, Tamborero  D, Berruezo  A, Mont  L. Comparison of benefits and mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation versus patients in sinus rhythm (results of the Spanish atrial fibrillation and resynchronization [SPARE] study). Am J Cardiol  2008;102:444–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Ueng  KC, Tsai  TP, Tsai  CF, Wu  DJ, Lin  CS, Lee  SH, Chen  S-A. Acute and long-term effects of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker in symptomatic patients with chronic lone atrial fibrillation and normal ventricular response. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol  2001;12:303–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Wang  S, Wu  S, Xu  L, Xiao  F, Whinnett  ZI, Vijayaraman  P, Su  L, Huang  W. Feasibility and efficacy of his bundle pacing or left bundle pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. JAHA  2019;8:e014253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Weerasooriya  R, Davis  M, Powell  A, Szili-Torok  T, Shah  C, Whalley  D, Kanagaratnam  L, Heddle  W, Leitch  J, Perks  A, Ferguson  L, Bulsara  M. The Australian intervention randomized control of rate in atrial fibrillation trial (AIRCRAFT). J Am Coll Cardiol  2003;41:1697–1702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Wong  J, Vohra  J, Chan  W, Mond  HG, Lichtenstein  M, Kritharides  L, Warren  RJ. Assessment of left ventricular function after radiofrequency and direct current atrioventricular node ablation. Aust N Z J Med  1996;26:82–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hartupee  J, Mann  DL. Neurohormonal activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol  2017;14:30–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Neubauer  S. The failing heart—an engine out of fuel. N Engl J Med  2007;356:1140–1151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Kotecha  D, Bunting  KV, Gill  SK, Mehta  S, Stanbury  M, Jones  JC, Haynes  S, Calvert  MJ, Deeks  JJ, Steeds  RP, Strauss  VY, Rahimi  K, Camm  AJ, Griffith  M, Lip  GYH, Townend  JN, Kirchhof  P. Effect of digoxin vs bisoprolol for heart rate control in atrial fibrillation on patient-reported quality of life: the RATE-AF randomized clinical trial. JAMA  2020;324:2497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Mueller  C, McDonald  K, de Boer  RA, Maisel  A, Cleland  JGF, Kozhuharov  N, Coats  AJS, Metra  M, Mebazaa  A, Ruschitzka  F, Lainscak  M, Filippatos  G, Seferovic  PM, Meijers  WC, Bayes-Genis  A, Mueller  T, Richards  M, Januzzi  JL. Heart failure association of the European Society of Cardiology practical guidance on the use of natriuretic peptide concentrations. European J of Heart Fail  2019;21:715–731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Tracy  CM, Epstein  AE, Darbar  D, DiMarco  JP, Dunbar  SB, Estes  NAM, Ferguson  TB, Hammill  SC, Karasik  PE, Link  MS, Marine  JE, Schoenfeld  MH, Shanker  AJ, Silka  MJ, Stevenson  LW, Stevenson  WG, Varosy  PD. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society. Circulation  2012;126:1784–1800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Heidenreich  PA, Bozkurt  B, Aguilar  D, Allen  LA, Byun  JJ, Colvin  MM, Deswal  A, Drazner  MH, Dunlay  SM, Evers  LR, Fang  JC, Fedson  SE, Fonarow  GC, Hayek  SS, Hernandez  AF, Khazanie  P, Kittleson  MM, Lee  CS, Link  MS, Milano  CA, Nnacheta  LC, Sandhu  AT, Stevenson  LW, Vardeny  O, Vest  AR, Yancy  CW. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol  2022;79:e263–e421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Bayes  T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. 1763. MD Comput  1991;8:157–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Huizar  JF, Ellenbogen  KA, Tan  AY, Kaszala  K. Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol  2019;73:2328–2344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Sharpe  N, Smith  H, Murphy  J, Hannan  S. Treatment of patients with symptomless left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. The Lancet  1988;331:255–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Whipple  GH, Woodman  EG, Theophilis  C, Friedman  S. Reversible congestive heart failure due to chronic rapid stimulation of the normal heart. Proc N Engl Cardiovasc Soc  1962;20:39–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Spinale  FG, Tanaka  R, Crawford  FA, Zile  MR. Changes in myocardial blood flow during development of and recovery from tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Circulation  1992;85:717–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Curtis  AB, Worley  SJ, Adamson  PB, Chung  ES, Niazi  I, Sherfesee  L, Shinn  T, St. John Sutton  M. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med  2013;368:1585–1593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Merkely  B, Hatala  R, Wranicz  JK, Duray  G, Földesi  C, Som  Z, Németh  M, Goscinska-Bis  K, Gellér  L, Zima  E, Osztheimer  I, Molnár  L, Karády  J, Hindricks  G, Goldenberg  I, Klein  H, Szigeti  M, Solomon  SD, Kutyifa  V, Kovács  A, Kosztin  A. Upgrade of right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J  2023;44:4259–4269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Brignole  M, Botto  G, Mont  L, Iacopino  S, De Marchi  G, Oddone  D, Luzi  M, Tolosana  JM, Navazio  A, Menozzi  C. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients undergoing atrioventricular junction ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J  2011;32:2420–2429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Stavrakis  S, Garabelli  P, Reynolds  DW. Cardiac resynchronization therapy after atrioventricular junction ablation for symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Europace  2012;14:1490–1497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Wood  MA, Brown-Mahoney  C, Kay  GN, Ellenbogen  KA. Clinical outcomes after ablation and pacing therapy for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Circulation  2000;101:1138–1144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Yin  J, Hu  H, Wang  Y, Xue  M, Li  X, Cheng  W, Li  X, Yan  S. Effects of atrioventricular nodal ablation on permanent atrial fibrillation patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol  2014;37:707–715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Thambo  J-B, Bordachar  P, Garrigue  S, Lafitte  S, Sanders  P, Reuter  S, Girardot  R, Crepin  D, Reant  P, Roudaut  R, Jaïs  P, Haïssaguerre  M, Clementy  J, Jimenez  M. Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation  2004;110:3766–3772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Marrouche  NF, Brachmann  J, Andresen  D, Siebels  J, Boersma  L, Jordaens  L, Merkely  B, Pokushalov  E, Sanders  P, Proff  J, Schunkert  H, Christ  H, Vogt  J, Bänsch  D. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med  2018;378:417–427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Sohns  C, Fox  H, Marrouche  NF, Crijns  HJGM, Costard-Jaeckle  A, Bergau  L, Hindricks  G, Dagres  N, Sossalla  S, Schramm  R, Fink  T, El Hamriti  M, Moersdorf  M, Sciacca  V, Konietschke  F, Rudolph  V, Gummert  J, Tijssen  JGP, Sommer  P. Catheter ablation in End-stage heart failure with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med  2023;389:1380–1389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Khan  MN, Jaïs  P, Cummings  J, Di Biase  L, Sanders  P, Martin  DO, Kautzner  J, Hao  S, Themistoclakis  S, Fanelli  R, Potenza  D, Massaro  R, Wazni  O, Schweikert  R, Saliba  W, Wang  P, Al-Ahmad  A, Beheiry  S, Santarelli  P, Starling  RC, Russo  AD, Pelargonio  G, Brachmann  J, Schibgilla  V, Bonso  A, Casella  M, Raviele  A, Haïssaguerre  M, Natale  A. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med  2008;359:1778–1785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Vijayaraman  P, Chung  MK, Dandamudi  G, Upadhyay  GA, Krishnan  K, Crossley  G, Bova Campbell  K, Lee  BK, Refaat  MM, Saksena  S, Fisher  JD, Lakkireddy  D. His bundle pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol  2018;72:927–947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Daubert  JP, Zareba  W, Cannom  DS, McNitt  S, Rosero  SZ, Wang  P, Schuger  C, Steinberg  JS, Higgins  SL, Wilber  DJ, Klein  H, Andrews  ML, Hall  WJ, Moss  AJ. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks in MADIT II. J Am Coll Cardiol  2008;51:1357–1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Van Gelder  IC, Rienstra  M, Bunting  KV, Casado-Arroyo  R, Caso  V, Crijns  HJGM, De Potter  TJR, Dwight  J, Guasti  L, Hanke  T, Jaarsma  T, Lettino  M, Løchen  M-L, Lumbers  RT, Maesen  B, Mølgaard  I, Rosano  GMC, Sanders  P, Schnabel  RB, Suwalski  P, Svennberg  E, Tamargo  J, Tica  O, Traykov  V, Tzeis  S, Kotecha  D, Dagres  N, Rocca  B, Ahsan  S, Ameri  P, Arbelo  E, Bauer  A, Borger  MA, Buccheri  S, Casadei  B, Chioncel  O, Dobrev  D, Fauchier  L, Gigante  B, Glikson  M, Hijazi  Z, Hindricks  G, Husser  D, Ibanez  B, James  S, Kaab  S, Kirchhof  P, Køber  L, Koskinas  KC, Kumler  T, Lip  GYH, Mandrola  J, Marx  N, Mcevoy  JW, Mihaylova  B, Mindham  R, Muraru  D, Neubeck  L, Nielsen  JC, Oldgren  J, Paciaroni  M, Pasquet  AA, Prescott  E, Rega  F, Rossello  FJ, Rucinski  M, Salzberg  SP, Schulman  S, Sommer  P, Svendsen  JH, ten Berg  JM, Ten Cate  H, Vaartjes  I, Vrints  CJ, Witkowski  A, Zeppenfeld  K, Simoni  L, Kichou  B, Sisakian  HS, Scherr  D, Cools  F, Smajić  E, Shalganov  T, Manola  S, Avraamides  P, Taborsky  M, Brandes  A, El-Damaty  AM, Kampus  P, Raatikainen  P, Garcia  R, Etsadashvili  K, Eckardt  L, Kallergis  E, Gellér  L, Guðmundsson  K, Lyne  J, Marai  I, Colivicchi  F, Abdrakhmanov  AS, Bytyci  I, Kerimkulova  A, Kupics  K, Refaat  M, Bheleel  OA, Barysienė  J, Leitz  P, Sammut  MA, Grosu  A, Pavlovic  N, Moustaghfir  A, Yap  S-C, Taleski  J, Fink  T, Kazmierczak  J, Sanfins  VM, Cozma  D, Zavatta  M, Kovačević  DV, Hlivak  P, Zupan  I, Calvo  D, Björkenheim  A, Kühne  M, Ouali  S, Demircan  S, Sychov  OS, Ng  A, Kuchkarov  H. 2024 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J  2024;45:3314–3414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Solomon  SD, Claggett  BL, Miao  ZM, Diaz  R, Felker  GM, McMurray  JJV, Metra  M, Corbalan  R, Filippatos  G, Goudev  AR, Mareev  V, Serpytis  P, Suter  T, Yilmaz  MB, Zannad  F, Kupfer  S, Heitner  SB, Malik  FI, Teerlink  JR. Influence of atrial fibrillation on efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure: the GALACTIC-HF trial. Eur Heart J  2022;43:2212–2220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

oeag020_Supplementary_Data
oeag020_supplementary_data.docx (5.5MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article are derived from published RCTs and observational studies identified through systematic searches of electronic bibliographic databases. No new primary data were generated. All source data are available in the cited articles. The dataset generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from European Heart Journal Open are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology

RESOURCES