Background—: Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to amiodarone (AMIO) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is unknown. Methods and Results—: This was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with persistent AF, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 months were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo CA for AF (group 1, n=102) or receive AMIO (group 2, n=101). Recurrence of AF was the primary end point. All-cause mortality and unplanned hospitalization were the secondary end points. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 24 months. At the end of follow-up, 71 (70%; 95% confidence interval, 60%–78%) patients in group 1 were recurrence free after an average of 1.4±0.6 procedures in comparison with 34 (34%; 95% confidence interval, 25%–44%) in group 2 (log-rank P <0.001). The success rate of CA in the different centers after a single procedure ranged from 29% to 61%. After adjusting for covariates in the multivariable model, AMIO therapy was found to be significantly more likely to fail (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–4.3; P <0.001) than CA. Over the 2-year follow-up, the unplanned hospitalization rate was (32 [31%] in group 1 and 58 [57%] in group 2; P <0.001), showing 45% relative risk reduction (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.76). A significantly lower mortality was observed in CA (8 [8%] versus AMIO (18 [18%]; P =0.037). Conclusions—: This multicenter randomized study shows that CA of AF is superior to AMIO in achieving freedom from AF at long-term follow-up and reducing unplanned hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure and persistent AF. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00729911.

Pulmonary-vein isolation is increasingly being used to treat atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. In this prospective, multicenter clinical trial, we randomly assigned patients with symptomatic, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation, an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure to undergo either pulmonary-vein isolation or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing. All patients completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 105, with a higher score indicating a worse quality of life) and underwent echocardiography and a 6-minute walk test (the composite primary end point). Over a 6-month period, patients were monitored for both symptomatic and asymptomatic episodes of atrial fibrillation. In all, 41 patients underwent pulmonary-vein isolation, and 40 underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; none were lost to follow-up at 6 months. The composite primary end point favored the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation, with an improved questionnaire score at 6 months (60, vs. 82 in the group that underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; P<0.001), a longer 6-minute-walk distance (340 m vs. 297 m, P<0.001), and a higher ejection fraction (35% vs. 28%, P<0.001). In the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation, 88% of patients receiving antiarrhythmic drugs and 71% of those not receiving such drugs were free of atrial fibrillation at 6 months. In the group that underwent pulmonary-vein isolation, pulmonary-vein stenosis developed in two patients, pericardial effusion in one, and pulmonary edema in another; in the group that underwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing, lead dislodgment was found in one patient and pneumothorax in another. Pulmonary-vein isolation was superior to atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who had drug-refractory atrial fibrillation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00599976.)

Background— Together with pulmonary veins, many extrapulmonary vein areas may be the source of initiation and maintenance of atrial fibrillation. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is an underestimated site of initiation of atrial fibrillation. Here, we report the prevalence of triggers from the LAA and the best strategy for successful ablation. Methods and Results— Nine hundred eighty-seven consecutive patients (29% paroxysmal, 71% nonparoxysmal) undergoing redo catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation were enrolled. Two hundred sixty-six patients (27%) showed firing from the LAA and became the study population. In 86 of 987 patients (8.7%; 5 paroxysmal, 81 nonparoxysmal), the LAA was found to be the only source of arrhythmia with no pulmonary veins or other extrapulmonary vein site reconnection. Ablation was performed either with focal lesion (n=56; group 2) or to achieve LAA isolation by placement of the circular catheter at the ostium of the LAA guided by intracardiac echocardiography (167 patients; group 3). In the remaining patients, LAA firing was not ablated (n=43; group 1). At the 12±3-month follow-up, 32 patients (74%) in group 1 had recurrence compared with 38 (68%) in group 2 and 25 (15%) in group 3 ( P <0.001). Conclusions— The LAA appears to be responsible for arrhythmias in 27% of patients presenting for repeat procedures. Isolation of the LAA could achieve freedom from atrial fibrillation in patients presenting for a repeat procedure when arrhythmias initiating from this structure are demonstrated.

Background—: Periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events are worrisome complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The periprocedural anticoagulation management could play a role in the incidence of these complications. Although ablation procedures performed without warfarin discontinuation seem to be associated with lower thromboembolic risk, no randomized study exists. Methods and Results—: This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study assessing the role of continuous warfarin therapy in preventing periprocedural thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events after radiofrequency catheter ablation. Patients with CHADS ₂ score ≥1 were included. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the off-warfarin or on-warfarin arm. The incidence of thromboembolic events in the 48 hours after ablation was the primary end point of the study. The study enrolled 1584 patients: 790 assigned to discontinue warfarin (group 1) and 794 assigned to continuous warfarin (group 2). No statistical difference in baseline characteristics was observed. There were 39 thromboembolic events (3.7% strokes [n=29] and 1.3% transient ischemic attacks [n=10]) in group 1: two events (0.87%) in patients with paroxysmal AF, 4 (2.3%) in patients with persistent AF, and 33 (8.5%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF. Only 2 strokes (0.25%) in patients with long-standing persistent AF were observed in group 2 ( P <0.001). Warfarin discontinuation emerged as a strong predictor of periprocedural thromboembolism (odds ratio, 13; 95% confidence interval, 3.1–55.6; P <0.001). Conclusion—: This is the first randomized study showing that performing catheter ablation of AF without warfarin discontinuation reduces the occurrence of periprocedural stroke and minor bleeding complications compared with bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01006876.