While catheter ablation offers an alternative to achieving rhythm control and resolving AF, no long-term studies have yet examined its effect on mortality and hospitalisations for HF. To address this gap, the RAFT-AF trial (NCT01420393) used a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design to compare catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control with rate control in participants diagnosed with both HF (stratified for reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of ≤45% or a preserved LVEF of >45%) and AF on the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or HF events. An HF event was defined as admission to a healthcare facility for >24 hours, a significant worsening of HF requiring intervention, or receiving a previously unplanned intravenous diuretic and increased therapy for chronic HF.
Prof. Anthony Tang (University of Ottawa, Canada) shared the results of RAFT-AF. Participants with both HF and AF (n=411) were randomised to receive either ablation-based AF rhythm control (n=214) or rate control (n=197). Median follow-up period was 37.4 months.
From the 214 patients in the ablation-based rhythm control group, 50 (23.4%) participants reached the primary outcome compared with 64 (32.5%) participants in the rate control group. Although numerically fewer events were present in the ablation group, the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.49–1.03; P=0.066) (see Figure).
Figure: Kaplan-Meier curves for the primary outcome of death and HF events in the RAFT-AF study [1]
Secondary outcomes included the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire and the Atrial Fibrillation Effects on Quality of Life (AFEQT) scores. Changes from baseline in both scores were improved in both groups, but after adjusting for time and competing cause of death, a greater improvement was observed in the rhythm-control group than in the rate control group. All secondary outcome measures consistently showed the greatest improvement with rhythm control in the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≤45%. Adverse events occurred equally in the 2 groups: 99 patients (50.3%) in the rate control group and 102 patients (47.7%) in the rhythm-control group experienced a serious adverse event.
The safety profiles between these two treatment approaches were similar; approximately 50% from each treatment group experienced one or more serious adverse events. The researchers concluded that while the results demonstrated no statistically significant effect of ablation-based rhythm control over rate-based control in patients with AF and HF as a whole, there did appear to be some trends towards benefit in the LVEF ≤45% subgroup, which would require confirmation in subsequent studies.
- Tang A. A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation (RAFT-AF). ACC 2021 Scientific Session, 15–17 May.
Copyright ©2021 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
Previous Article
« Finerenone reduces the risk of AF onset in patients with CKD and diabetes Next Article
Urinary incontinence may take a toll on mental health »
« Finerenone reduces the risk of AF onset in patients with CKD and diabetes Next Article
Urinary incontinence may take a toll on mental health »
Table of Contents: ACC 2021
Featured articles
Electrophysiology
Favourable outcomes with transcatheter atrial appendage occlusion
Etripamil nasal spray significantly improves PSVT-related symptoms
Ablation-based rhythm control as effective as rate control in AF and HF
Finerenone reduces the risk of AF onset in patients with CKD and diabetes
Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathy
PARADISE-MI: Sacubitril/valsartan not superior to ramipril in reducing HF events
Older adults with heart failure benefit from rehabilitation programme
Quality improvement intervention fails to improve care for patients with heart failure
Sacubitril/valsartan does not reduce NT-proBNP versus valsartan alone in HFrEF
Novel use of ivabradine in reversible cardiomyopathy
Mavacamten significantly improves QoL of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Interventional and Structural Cardiology
Men and women benefit equally from early aspirin withdrawal following PCI
Similar outcomes with fractional flow reserve and angiography-guided revascularisation
TALOS-AMI: Exploring outcomes after switching to clopidogrel versus ticagrelor at 1 month from MI
Clopidogrel monotherapy associated with better net outcomes relative to aspirin monotherapy 6-18 months after PCI
Ischaemic Heart Disease
No difference in ischaemic risk or bleeding with low vs high-dose aspirin for secondary prevention: Lessons and questions from the ADAPTABLE trial
Rivaroxaban reduces total ischaemic events after peripheral artery revascularisation
Moderate hypothermia not superior to mild hypothermia following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Better outcomes with invasive strategy if anatomic complete revascularisation is possible
Prevention and Health Promotion
STRENGTH trial fails to demonstrate cardioprotective effect of omega-3 fatty acids
Evinacumab lowers triglyceride levels in severe hypertriglyceridaemia
Health equity and the role of the cardiologist: 7 priorities to consider
COVID-19
Dapagliflozin fails to show a significant protective effect in COVID-19
Therapeutic anticoagulation not superior to prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19
Atorvastatin does not reduce mortality in COVID-19
Valvular Heart Disease
Apixaban outcomes similar to current standard of care following TAVR
Preliminary results encouraging for EVOQUE tricuspid valve replacement
Related Articles
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy