In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF), strict and regular rate control with atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacemaker (Ablation + CRT) has been shown to be superior to pharmacological rate control in reducing HF hospitalizations. However, whether it also improves survival is unknown. In this international, open-label, blinded outcome trial, we randomly assigned patients with severely symptomatic permanent AF >6 months, narrow QRS (≤110 ms) and at least one HF hospitalization in the previous year to Ablation + CRT or to pharmacological rate control. We hypothesized that Ablation + CRT is superior in reducing the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. A total of 133 patients were randomized. The mean age was 73 ± 10 years, and 62 (47%) were females. The trial was stopped for efficacy at interim analysis after a median of 29 months of follow-up per patient. The primary endpoint occurred in 7 patients (11%) in the Ablation + CRT arm and in 20 patients (29%) in the Drug arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.65; P = 0.004]. The estimated death rates at 2 years were 5% and 21%, respectively; at 4 years, 14% and 41%. The benefit of Ablation + CRT of all-cause mortality was similar in patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% and in those with >35%. The secondary endpoint combining all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the Ablation + CRT arm [18 (29%) vs. 36 (51%); HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.73; P = 0.002]. Ablation + CRT was superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing mortality in patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS who were hospitalized for HF, irrespective of their baseline EF. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02137187.

Introduction: The awareness of radiation doses and risks, also during interventional cardiology procedures, is essential today in order to apply the risk-benefit assessment and to reinforce the principles of justification and optimisation in clinical practice. Methods: A voluntary survey with 10 questions and multiple-choice answers was run on a popular cardiology website (www.cardiolink.it) independently by a scientific publisher, in order to evaluate the contemporary level of radiation awareness in a multi-speciality sample of physicians in Italy. Results: One thousand eight hundred and sixty-one physicians completed the test. The survey showed good results since both prescribers and practitioners (mostly cardiologists) working in Italy are largely aware of the cancer and non-cancer risks of medical radiation use, regardless of their subspecialty background. Conclusion: Physicians are largely aware of the cancer and non-cancer risks of medical radiation use, regardless of their subspecialty background. However, there is still broad space for improvement; in the future, the awareness of radiation risk is a prerequisite to create a culture of respect for radiation hazard and a commitment to minimise exposure and maximise protection.