Abstract
Purpose of Review
Arrhythmias are common in patients with heart failure (HF) and are associated with a significant risk of mortality and morbidity. Optimal antiarrhythmic treatment is therefore essential. Here, we review current approaches to antiarrhythmic treatment in patients with HF.
Recent Findings
In atrial fibrillation, rhythm control and ventricular rate control are accepted therapeutic strategies. In recent years, clinical trials have demonstrated a prognostic benefit of early rhythm control strategies and AF catheter ablation, especially in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Prevention of sudden cardiac death with ICD therapy is essential, but optimal risk stratification is challenging. For ventricular tachycardias, recent data support early consideration of catheter ablation. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is an adjunctive therapy in symptomatic patients but has no prognostic benefit and well-recognized (proarrhythmic) adverse effects.
Summary
Antiarrhythmic therapy in HF requires a systematic, multimodal approach, starting with guideline-directed medical therapy for HF and integrating pharmacological, device, and interventional therapy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome due to structural and/or functional disorders of the heart which lead to inadequate cardiac output at rest and/or during exercise or elevated intracardiac pressures [1, 2]. Despite a decline in the age-adjusted incidence of HF in developed countries, the overall incidence of HF is increasing [3, 4]. In developed countries, the prevalence of known HF is estimated at 1–2% [5]. Globally, an estimated 64.3 million people are living with HF today [6].
Arrhythmias are frequent in patients with HF: an estimated one-third to half of all HF patients suffers from atrial fibrillation (AF) [7], and nearly half of all HF patients may have premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) [8]. At the same time, arrhythmias are associated with a significant risk of mortality and morbidity in HF patients: the combination of HF and AF may lead to higher risks for dementia, stroke, HF hospital admission, and ultimately, death [9]. Despite progress in the pharmacologic treatment of HF, the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains [10]. Especially in HF patients, SCD is often associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) [11, 12]. Therefore, this review focuses on antiarrhythmic long-term treatment of AF and VA in patients with HF.
Supraventricular Arrhythmias in Heart Failure
Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure
Such as HF, AF is a common cardiac condition with an approximated global prevalence of 60 million cases [13]. It is a common concept that AF begets HF and vice versa [14] as both diseases are linked by multiple risk factors for disease development and progression, e.g., arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and increased age, as well as pathophysiological mechanisms. Thus, it often remains unclear if HF precedes AF or is the cause of it. HF with left ventricular systolic dysfunction can be found in more than one-third of all patients with AF and up to half of patients with HF with left ventricular systolic dysfunction suffer from AF [14, 15]. The development of AF in HF patients is associated with increased mortality in patients with both HF with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [16]. AF in HF patients is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events in HFrEF and HFpEF patients [17]. Antiarrhythmic therapy for AF in HF patients therefore aims not only on alleviating symptoms, but early intervention is proposed to halt the progression of both HF and AF and to improve the prognosis [18, 19].
Managing Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure
First, antiarrhythmic treatment of AF in HF patients includes identification and treatment of possible causes or triggers of AF [1]. This includes, e.g., hyperthyroidism, infection, and uncontrolled hypertension. All patients with AF and HF should receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF [1, 19] as GDMT not only improves HF outcomes but may also affect the risk of AF. Regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, results of a meta-analysis by Healey et al. showed a 44% relative risk reduction in the documentation of AF in HF patients [20].
Rate Control
Ventricular rate control is an integral part of AF in management in all AF patients. Beta-blockers (BB) may primarily be used in patients with HFrEF and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) [19, 21]. When ventricular rates remain high despite BB therapy or in case of contraindication or intolerance, digoxin should be used. Results of the DIGIT-HF trial which addresses the use of digitoxin in HFrEF patients are expected in the near future [22]. BB and digoxin may be combined if single-drug therapy does not achieve the target heart rate [19]. Of note, a combination of digitalis with class III antiarrhythmic drugs may enhance ventricular tachyarrhythmias [23].
The optimal target resting heart rate in AF patients is unclear. A lenient rate control (target resting heart rate < 110 bpm) is considered to be an acceptable approach, as data from the RACE II trial and a pooled analysis of the historic RACE and AFFIRM trials failed to show differences in outcome comparing lenient and strict rate control strategies [24, 25]. Lower ventricular rates may be targeted if required by persistent symptoms or impaired cardiac function, e.g., in case of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy [19].
Rhythm Control
The recent ESC-AF guideline gives a class I recommendation for rhythm control therapy for all symptomatic AF patients aiming at symptom control and improvement of quality of life [19]. Beyond that, the choice between a rate control strategy and a rhythm control strategy remains crucial, especially as several factors including comorbidities such as arterial hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea, left atrium enlargement, and increased sympathetic tone may complicate restoration of sinus rhythm in HF patients [26]. Early trials such as AFFIRM HF [27] and AF-CHF [28] indicated no difference between rate and rhythm control strategy regarding their endpoints of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death in patients with concomitant AF and HF. However, as these trials were conducted in the pre-ablation era, challenges regarding optimal dosage of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) and their adverse effects need to be considered. Furthermore, considering the years of potential adverse effects of AF, follow-up was relatively short.
For pharmacological rhythm control, amiodarone is the drug of choice for HFrEF patients. In patients with HFpEF, amiodarone, dronedarone, or sotalol may be used [29]. Treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs for long-term rhythm control includes continuous evaluation and minimization of proarrhythmic risk [30] and organ toxicity and periodical assessment of AF burden under therapy [19].
More recent trials have provided data in favor of a rhythm control strategy.
The EAST-AFNET 4 trial [31] randomized patients with early AF (diagnosed ≤ 1 year before enrolment) and cardiovascular risk factors to early rhythm control (with AAD or catheter ablation) or usual care. 19.4% of patients received AF catheter ablation. The trial was halted prematurely because results showed a significant difference in the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, stroke, or hospitalization with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome with a risk reduction of 22% by systematic rhythm control therapy. This clinical benefit was confirmed in a sub-study by Rillig et al. including patients with signs and symptoms of HF (NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%) [32]. Of note, the effectiveness of early rhythm control was mediated by the presence of sinus rhythm at 12 months in the EAST-AFNET 4 trial. Patients who were not in sinus rhythm at the 12-month follow-up did not further benefit from rhythm control in the remaining four years of follow-up [33]. Additionally, the clinical benefit of early rhythm control did not differ between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in this trial [34].
The AATAC trial included patients with persistent AF, dual-chamber implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or cardiac resynchronization (CRT) defibrillator, HF with NYHA class II-III, and LVEF ≤ 40% who were randomized to catheter ablation or amiodarone. Catheter ablation resulted in not only a significant improvement of LVEF and 6-min-walking distance, but also a relative risk reduction in hospitalization and all-cause mortality of 45% and 56%, respectively [35]. The AMICA trial failed to show a significant difference of LVEF change in HF patients with NYHA class II-III, and LVEF ≤ 35% and persistent or long-standing persistent AF comparing catheter ablation and medical treatment [36]. In addition, results of the CASTLE-AF trial (2018) [37] showed that catheter ablation for AF in patients with HF was associated with a significantly lower rate of the composite end point of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening HF than medical therapy with an absolute risk reduction of 16.1%, suggesting prognostic effects of catheter ablation in HFrEF patients with AF. However, due to the relatively small and selected patient group with only patients with HF symptoms NYHA class ≥ II and a LVEF ≤ 35% and an implanted defibrillator, significance of the results for routine clinical practice is often doubted [38]. The CAMERA-MRI trial compared catheter ablation and medical rate control in patients with idiopathic cardiomyopathy and LVEF ≤ 45% regarding the primary endpoint of LVEF change. Results showed a significant improvement of LVEF in the ablation arm with a normalization of LVEF [39]. Furthermore, a sub-analysis of the CABANA trial for patients with concomitant AF and HF showed a reduction of the primary composite endpoint of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest and all-cause mortality by AF ablation compared to drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs [40].
A stratified pooled analysis of available trials by Chen et al. showed that catheter ablation as rhythm control strategy is associated with a significantly lower all-cause mortality, reduced re-hospitalization rate, and greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction compared with medical therapy in AF and HF patients [41]. Due to its publication date, results of the EAST-AFNET4 trial were not included in this analysis.
Despite several limitations [42], outcomes of these trials lead to recommendations for catheter ablation of AF as first-line therapy in the current ESC-AF guidelines when tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is highly probable (class I) and in selected HFrEF patients to improve survival and reduce HF hospitalization (class IIa) [43]. After failure of AAD therapy, class I recommendations for catheter ablation are given for paroxysmal and persistent AF. Beyond that, a recent AHA Scientific Statement suggests that catheter ablation may be considered first-line therapy for patients with AF and HFrEF based on this data [42]. Today, AF ablations already account for the majority of electrophysiological procedures performed in Germany [44].
For optimal patient selection for catheter ablation, several factors have been identified: in the CASTLE-AF trial, the beneficial effect of AF ablation was predominantly seen in patients with NYHA classes I–II and in patients with a nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) [45]. The results of the AMICA trial [36] suggested that in patients with more advanced HF catheter ablation might not be superior to pharmacological therapy. In the CAMERA-MRI study, a greater increase in LVEF was seen in patients without left ventricular scar determined by late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac MRI [39]. LV scarring on MRI might represent advanced cardiomyopathy often concomitant with increased left atrial volume and diameter and persistent AF [42]. While patients with end-stage heart failure were excluded from aforementioned studies, the recently published CASTLE-HTx trial [46] aimed to evaluate the effect of catheter ablation of AF in this specific cohort of patients with end-stage HF who are eligible of heart transplantation. The results of this trial showed a reduction in the composite endpoint consisting of death from any cause, left ventricular assist device implantation, or urgent heart transplantation with the combination of catheter ablation of AF and guideline-directed medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone after a median follow-up of 18 months in this patient cohort. The trial was stopped early for efficacy on the recommendation of the monitoring board. Although the open-label design, the relatively small sample size, and the single-center nature of the study are important limitations, the results of CASTLE-HTx point towards a benefit of AF ablation in patients with the most advanced HF.
In general, a shared decision-making process is recommended, considering patient preferences as well as several factors regarding HF and AF symptoms, LVEF impairment, left ventricular scarring, and duration of AF (Fig. 1).
Atrioventricular Node Ablation and Pacing/CRT
Pharmacological ventricular rate control can be challenging in HF patients. In a systematic review by Ganesan et al. [44] atrioventricular node ablation in HF patients with AF was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and improvement in mean NYHA class [47]. More recently, the APAF-CRT trial showed that ablation of the atrioventricular node with prior implantation of CRT was superior to conventional pharmacological rate control due to significant reduction in death resulting from HF and HF hospitalisations in patients with permanent AF and at least one hospitalization for HF in the prior year [48]. Based on these data, atrioventricular node ablation [49] and CRT implantation may be preferred when a rate control strategy is pursued.
Other Types of Supraventricular Arrhythmias
HF patients can develop paroxysmal supraventricular arrhythmias that are otherwise seen in the healthy population, e.g., atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia, atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia, or focal atrial tachycardia. Dependent on type, rate, and duration of tachycardia, they may cause arrhythmia-induced or arrhythmia-aggravated cardiomyopathy [50]. Generally, these arrhythmias are treated similarly to patients without HF, although the main treatment goal is the elimination of tachycardia either by AAD and/or catheter ablation. Therefore, the threshold for catheter ablation should be lower in HF patients with arrhythmias known to have a high success rate of catheter ablation [50, 51].
Ventricular Arrhythmias in Heart Failure
Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death
Triggered by a pivotal meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by Shen et al. [52] including 40,195 patients, there has been increasing attention recently to the notion that the risk of SCD in patients with HF is reduced with GDMT. Nevertheless, there is no convincing evidence for a significantly declined SCD risk in HF trials over time [10]. SCD still is a very common cause of death in patients with HF. In a meta-analysis including 1.5 million patients with HF, Jones et al. [53] showed that SCD accounted for 22% of all deaths from 2007 to 2017 with no apparent reduction over time. Furthermore, despite available data suggests that GDMT reduces the relative risk of SCD [52], even in recent HF trials [54, 55], the annual risk of SCD remains higher than 1.2% [10].
Several studies have shown that a high proportion of deaths in HF patients occurs suddenly as a result of VA [56, 57]. In a recent population-based cohort study, the 1-year cumulative incidence of severe VA defined as VA associated with emergency department visits or hospitalizations was 5.4% in patients with advanced HF with LVEF < 40% [58]. New-onset VA were associated with increased mortality. Thus, optimal treatment of VA in patients with HF includes primary and secondary preventive ICD therapy as well as pharmacological and interventional treatment of VA.
Pharmacological Treatment
GDMT is the basis of antiarrhythmic treatment of HF patients in order to prevent progression of the underlying cardiomyopathy. This should include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), BB, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) in HFrEF patients (all class I recommendations) [1]. As prospective RCTs for patients specifically with HFmrEF and HFpEF are lacking recommendations for these patients, groups are weaker and emphasize the use of diuretics, when needed, and SGLT2-I [1, 2]. With regard to BB, MRA, and ARNI, multiple studies have shown a relative risk reduction of SCD [10], e.g., bisoprolol reduced SCD by 44% in the CIBIS II study [59] and ARNI reduced SCD risk by 20% in the PARADIGM-HF trial [60].
Until today, no AAD except for BB has proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, AAD remain integral part of the management of VA in HF patients as adjunctive therapy, especially for symptomatic patients with frequent VA. Yet, besides proarrhythmic [30] and other drug-specific adverse effects, most AAD have negative-inotropic effects that may worsen the hemodynamic status. Class IC AAD are generally avoided in patients with structural heart disease and impairment of LVEF due to the results of the CAST trial [61]. Similarly, an increased mortality has been shown for dronedarone [62] and sotalol [63]; thus, amiodarone is the most-widely used AAD in HF patients as it has shown neutral effects on mortality in clinical trials of patient with HFrEF [2] and demonstrates a low proarrhythmic potential in HF [64, 65]. Amiodarone is also the drug of choice in case of an electrical storm [66]. Amiodarone combined with BB has shown a high efficacy regarding ICD shock rates [67] which has to be weighed against the increased rate of adverse events, e.g., thyroid and pulmonary toxicity [66]. Class IB AAD such as lidocaine or mexiletine and Class IA AAD as quinidine have not been studied systematically and may be used for refractory arrhythmias after individual risk–benefit assessment [66].
Device Therapy
ICD therapy is essential in secondary prevention of SCD in patients with a history of aborted SCD or hemodynamically significant sustained VA based on the results of relatively old ICD trials [66, 68,69,70]. For primary prevention of SCD, several RCTs [71,72,73,74] support ICD therapy in HF patients with LVEF ≤ 35% by reporting a significant mortality reduction in this patient cohort. As the evidence is most robust in patients with ischemic etiology of HF, the current ESC guideline on VA and prevention of SCD gives a strong class I recommendation for symptomatic HFrEF patients with NYHA functional class II–III and LVEF ≤ 35% [66, 75]. Mainly due to the more recent DANISH trial [76] that raised questions on the benefit of ICD therapy in patients with NICM as it failed to show a reduction in the primary endpoint of all-cause death by ICD therapy compared to standard care, the current ESC guideline gives a class IIa recommendation for this patient group. Yet, in a meta-analysis, a significant reduction of overall mortality was shown by primary preventive ICD therapy in patients with NICM [77].
All in all, as the absolute majority of SCD cases occurs in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF [56], the significance of LVEF as the only risk marker is limited, especially in NICM patients. The current ESC guidelines [66] have addressed this concern by considering additional risk factors such as specific pathogenetic mutations, history of syncope, inducibility of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) on electrophysiological study, and increased scar burden on LGE cardiac MRI [78]. Additionally, echocardiographic variables may assist assessing the prognosis in HF patients [79]. Regarding primary preventive ICD therapy, GDMT for HF is required for 3 months until the decision for ICD implantation is made [66].
Table 1 provides an overview of indications on ICD implantation according to current ESC [1] guidelines. Notably, due to publication dates and different weighing of the available evidence, recommendations for primary preventive ICD therapy in HF patients differ internationally [80].
About one-third of all HF patients has ventricular conduction abnormalities [50, 81]. In selected HF patients, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality [1, 82, 83]. Therefore, according to current guidelines, selected HFrEF patients with an indication for ICD therapy may receive CRT-ICD rather than conventional ICD therapy. The strongest recommendation (class I) is given for symptomatic HF patients with LVEF ≤ 35% in sinus rhythm who show a left bundle branch QRS morphology with a QRS duration ≥ 150 ms, while a class IIa recommendation is given for patients with a QRS duration ≥ 150 ms but non-left bundle branch QRS morphology [1, 83].
Catheter Ablation
ICD therapy reduces SCD, but does not prevent VT. Therefore, many HF patients may experience symptomatic VA and ICD shocks. Catheter ablation of VA is therefore a central component of VA therapy in HF patients. In the VANISH trial, there was a significant reduction of the composite endpoint of death, VT storm, or appropriate ICD therapy in the ablation group as compared to the group receiving an escalation in pre-existing AAD therapy [84]. The trial only included patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with a mean LVEF of 31%. Results of the BERLIN VT trial failed to show a reduction in mortality or hospitalization for arrhythmia or worsening HF during 1 year of follow-up by preventive ablation immediately before ICD implantation compared to a deferred ablation therapy after the third appropriate ICD shock [85]. At the moment, the ongoing VANISH2 trial (NCT02830360) is aiming at addressing the question whether catheter ablation is superior to AAD therapy as first-line treatment. Overall, optimal timing of catheter ablation of VT is unclear [86] and data on a possible prognostic benefit of catheter ablation are scarce. The recently published SURVIVE-VT trial [87] and the PARTITA trial [88] provide evidence for earlier consideration of VT ablation in clinical practice after a first appropriate ICD shock [89]. Furthermore, the PAUSE-SCD trial [90] reported a reduction of the composite endpoint of VT recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization, and death by early ablation performed at the time of ICD implantation in ischemic and NICM. A recent meta-analysis [91] of nine RCTs comparing the efficacy of early VT catheter ablation demonstrated that early ablation reduces VT burden and ICD therapies. However, mortality rate and quality of life were not affected. As only 7.9% of included patients had a nonischemic etiology of HF, RCTs on catheter ablation of VT in this patient group are needed to clarify the role of ablation in this cohort. Thus, catheter ablation was particularly recommended in HF patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and recurrent ventricular tachycardia after ICD therapy.
Premature Ventricular Contractions and PVC-aggravated Cardiomyopathy
PVCs are the most frequent VA [50] and common in patients with HF. Frequent PVC may cause left ventricular systolic dysfunction referred to as PVC-induced or PVC-aggravated cardiomyopathy. As cardiomyopathy may be reversed by the elimination of PVCs, it is important to recognize this entity. However, despite elimination of PVCs, in some patients, LVEF does not return to normal, which may be caused by a preexisting (yet unknown) left ventricular dysfunction [75]. Thus, the diagnosis of PVC-induced cardiomyopathy can only be confirmed after improvement or normalization of LVEF following elimination of PVCs. A PVC burden of > 10% seems to be the threshold of PVCs for the development of left ventricular dysfunction [92].
Treatment of PCV-mediated cardiomyopathy therefore aims at complete suppression of PVCs. Catheter ablation of PVCs has reported success rates of 75–90% [66] and is therefore considered first-line treatment (class I recommendation) for PVC-induced cardiomyopathy. PVC ablation can be challenging [93, 94] due to catheter instability or the inability to reach PVC origin, especially when an intramural location is present [50]. AAD are an alternative if catheter ablation is not desired, suspected to be high-risk, or unsuccessful. When a PVC-induced cardiomyopathy without other underlying structural heart disease is suspected and there is only a moderate left ventricular dysfunction, flecainide can be used apart from BB and amiodarone.
Conclusion
The management of arrhythmias in HF requires a systematic, multimodality approach. It starts with GDMT for HF as the foundation and should integrate pharmacological, interventional, and device therapy for arrhythmias (Fig. 2). AF and HF are often linked together. For the treatment of catheter ablation, all patients may receive pharmacological rhythm control therapy. In HFrEF patients, (early) rhythm control for AF including catheter ablation is an important pillar of AF therapy, as recent RCTs showed a reduction of AF burden and suggested prognostic implications, especially in case of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy. On the other hand, data for AF therapy in patients with HFpEF are sparse. When a rate control strategy is chosen over rhythm control, atrioventricular node ablation and (CRT) pacing might be considered early. The treatment of other supraventricular arrhythmias is similar to the management in patients without HF, but due to the possibility to tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, thresholds for catheter ablation as a curative therapy should be lower.
Despite a reduction of relative SCD risk by a progress in pharmacological HF therapy, absolute SCD risk remains high in HF patients and SCD is often associated with VA. ICD therapy is crucial not only in secondary, but primary prevention of SCD risk. For risk stratification, LVEF ≤ 35% is used as a primary risk factor based on older primary preventive ICD trials. Nevertheless, a shift to a more personalized assessment of SCD risk in the individual patient integrates other factors such as LGE on cardiac MRI, specific pathogenic mutations and electrophysiologic study can be observed, especially in patient with NICM. In patients with an indication for ICD and additional intraventricular conduction disturbances, CRT should be considered according to current guidelines. Until now, AAD failed to show a positive effect on mortality in HF patients, except for BB. Yet, AAD are important as adjunct therapy in patients with frequent and symptomatic VA. Amiodarone is often the AAD of choice, because class IC AAD and sotalol have been shown to increase mortality in patients with structural heart disease and dronedarone has been associated with increased early mortality in patients with severe HF. Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is another important strategy with the potential to decrease the number of (symptomatic) VT recurrences in HF patients. Recent RCTs provide support for the consideration of early VT ablation in clinical practice, although available data is most robust for patients with ICM. In HF patients with PVC-induced or PVC-aggravated cardiomyopathy, catheter ablation of PVC is considered as first-line treatment due to high success rates, although this treatment option can be challenging depending on the site of origin of the arrhythmia.
References
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3599–726. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e895–1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063.
Conrad N, Judge A, Tran J, Mohseni H, Hedgecott D, Crespillo AP, et al. Temporal trends and patterns in heart failure incidence: a population-based study of 4 million individuals. Lancet. 2018;391:572–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32520-5.
Savarese G, Lund LH. Global public health burden of heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2017;3:7–11. https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2016:25:2.
Groenewegen A, Rutten FH, Mosterd A, Hoes AW. Epidemiology of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22:1342–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1858.
GBD 2017. Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1789–858.
Maisel WH, Stevenson LW. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and rationale for therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91:2D-8D. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9149(02)03373-8.
Huizar JF, Tan AY, Kaszala K, Ellenbogen KA. Clinical and translational insights on premature ventricular contractions and PVC-induced cardiomyopathy. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;66:17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2021.04.001.
Mulder BA, Rienstra M, van Gelder IC, Blaauw Y. Update on management of atrial fibrillation in heart failure: a focus on ablation. Heart. 2022;108:422–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318081.
Leyva F, Israel CW, Singh J. Declining risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure: fact or myth? Circulation. 2023;147:759–67. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062159.
Eckardt L, Haverkamp W, Johna R, Böcker D, Deng MC, Breithardt G, Borggrefe M. Arrhythmias in heart failure: current concepts of mechanisms and therapy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2000;11:106–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2000.tb00746.x.
Nielsen JC, Lin Y-J, de Oliveira Figueiredo MJ, SepehriShamloo A, Alfie A, Boveda S, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population. Europace. 2020;22:1147–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa065.
Elliott AD, Middeldorp ME, van Gelder IC, Albert CM, Sanders P. Epidemiology and modifiable risk factors for atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2023;20:404–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00820-8.
Santhanakrishnan R, Wang N, Larson MG, Magnani JW, McManus DD, Lubitz SA, et al. Atrial fibrillation begets heart failure and vice versa: temporal associations and differences in preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. Circulation. 2016;133:484–92. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018614.
Pabel S, Sossalla S. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: novel insights into the chicken and egg dilemma. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3376–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac257.
Mamas MA, Caldwell JC, Chacko S, Garratt CJ, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Neyses L. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:676–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfp085.
Olsson LG, Swedberg K, Ducharme A, Granger CB, Michelson EL, McMurray JJV, et al. Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results from the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1997–2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.01.060.
Schnabel RB, Marinelli EA, Arbelo E, Boriani G, Boveda S, Buckley CM, et al. Early diagnosis and better rhythm management to improve outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: the 8th AFNET/EHRA consensus conference. Europace. 2023;25:6–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac062.
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:373–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612.
Healey JS, Baranchuk A, Crystal E, Morillo CA, Garfinkle M, Yusuf S, Connolly SJ. Prevention of atrial fibrillation with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1832–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.070.
Kotecha D, Flather MD, Altman DG, Holmes J, Rosano G, Wikstrand J, et al. Heart rate and rhythm and the benefit of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2885–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.001.
Bavendiek U, Berliner D, Dávila LA, Schwab J, Maier L, Philipp SA, et al. Rationale and design of the DIGIT-HF trial (DIGitoxin to Improve ouTcomes in patients with advanced chronic Heart Failure): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:676–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1452.
Frommeyer G, Milberg P, Schulze Grotthoff J, Dechering DG, Kochhäuser S, Stypmann J, et al. Dronedarone and digitalis: individually reduced post-repolarization refractoriness enhances life-threatening arrhythmias. Europace. 2015;17:1300–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu393.
van Gelder IC, Groenveld HF, Crijns HJGM, Tuininga YS, Tijssen JGP, Alings AM, et al. Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1363–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1001337.
van Gelder IC, Wyse DG, Chandler ML, Cooper HA, Olshansky B, Hagens VE, Crijns HJGM. Does intensity of rate-control influence outcome in atrial fibrillation? An analysis of pooled data from the RACE and AFFIRM studies. Europace. 2006;8:935–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eul106.
Lip GYH, Heinzel FR, Gaita F, Juanatey JRG, Le Heuzey JY, Potpara T, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Failure Association joint consensus document on arrhythmias in heart failure, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society. Europace. 2016;18:12–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv191.
Freudenberger RS, Wilson AC, Kostis JB. Comparison of rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (from the AFFIRM Study). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:247–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.02.101.
Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, Wyse DG, Dorian P, Lee KL, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2667–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0708789.
Willems S, Meyer C, de Bono J, Brandes A, Eckardt L, Elvan A, et al. Cabins, castles, and constant hearts: rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:3793–3799c. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz782.
Frommeyer G, Eckardt L. Drug-induced proarrhythmia: risk factors and electrophysiological mechanisms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13:36–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.110.
Kirchhof P, Camm AJ, Goette A, Brandes A, Eckardt L, Elvan A, et al. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1305–16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Rillig A, Magnussen C, Ozga A-K, Suling A, Brandes A, Breithardt G, et al. Early rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Circulation. 2021;144:845–58. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056323.
Eckardt L, Sehner S, Suling A, Borof K, Breithardt G, Crijns H, et al. Attaining sinus rhythm mediates improved outcome with early rhythm control therapy of atrial fibrillation: the EAST-AFNET 4 trial. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:4127–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac471.
Willems S, Borof K, Brandes A, Breithardt G, Camm AJ, Crijns HJGM, et al. Systematic, early rhythm control strategy for atrial fibrillation in patients with or without symptoms: the EAST-AFNET 4 trial. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:1219–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab593.
Di Biase L, Mohanty P, Mohanty S, Santangeli P, Trivedi C, Lakkireddy D, et al. Ablation versus amiodarone for treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure and an implanted device: results from the AATAC multicenter randomized trial. Circulation. 2016;133:1637–44. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019406.
Kuck K-H, Merkely B, Zahn R, Arentz T, Seidl K, Schlüter M, et al. Catheter ablation versus best medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure: the randomized AMICA trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12:e007731. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007731.
Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, Siebels J, Boersma L, Jordaens L, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:417–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707855.
Noseworthy PA, van Houten HK, Gersh BJ, Packer DL, Friedman PA, Shah ND, et al. Generalizability of the CASTLE-AF trial: catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in routine practice. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17:1057–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.02.030.
Prabhu S, Taylor AJ, Costello BT, Kaye DM, McLellan AJA, Voskoboinik A, et al. Catheter ablation versus medical rate control in atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction: the CAMERA-MRI study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:1949–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.041.
Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA, Monahan KH, Bahnson TD, Poole JE, et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:1261–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0693.
Chen S, Pürerfellner H, Meyer C, Acou W-J, Schratter A, Ling Z, et al. Rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation complicated with heart failure in the contemporary era of catheter ablation: a stratified pooled analysis of randomized data. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:2863–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443.
Gopinathannair R, Chen LY, Chung MK, Cornwell WK, Furie KL, Lakkireddy DR, et al. Managing atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14:e000078. https://doi.org/10.1161/HAE.0000000000000078.
Eckardt L, Wolfes J, Frommeyer G. Benefits of early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2023.04.001.
Eckardt L, Doldi F, Busch S, Duncker D, Estner H, Kuniss M, et al. 10-year follow-up of interventional electrophysiology: updated German survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Res Cardiol. 2023;112:784–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02090-3.
Sohns C, Zintl K, Zhao Y, Dagher L, Andresen D, Siebels J, et al. Impact of left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms on outcomes post ablation of atrial fibrillation in heart failure: CASTLE-AF trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020;13:e008461. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008461.
Sohns C, Fox H, Marrouche NF, Crijns HJGM, Costard-Jaeckle A, Bergau L, et al. Catheter ablation in end-stage heart failure with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:1380–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2306037.
Ganesan AN, Brooks AG, Roberts-Thomson KC, Lau DH, Kalman JM, Sanders P. Role of AV nodal ablation in cardiac resynchronization in patients with coexistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:719–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.891.
Brignole M, Pokushalov E, Pentimalli F, Palmisano P, Chieffo E, Occhetta E, et al. A randomized controlled trial of atrioventricular junction ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3999–4008. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy555.
Wasmer K, Hochadel M, Wieneke H, Spitzer SG, Brachmann J, Straube F, et al. Long-term symptom improvement and patient satisfaction after AV-node ablation vs. pulmonary vein isolation for symptomatic atrial fibrillation: results from the German Ablation Registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;108:395–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1368-2.
Prinzen FW, Auricchio A, Mullens W, Linde C, Huizar JF. Electrical management of heart failure: from pathophysiology to treatment. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:1917–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac088.
Brugada J, Katritsis DG, Arbelo E, Arribas F, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia. The task force for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:655–720. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz467.
Shen L, Jhund PS, Petrie MC, Claggett BL, Barlera S, Cleland JGF, et al. Declining risk of sudden death in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1609758.
Jones NR, Roalfe AK, Adoki I, Hobbs FDR, Taylor CJ. Survival of patients with chronic heart failure in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:1306–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1594.
McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1409077.
McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1995–2008. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911303.
Myerburg RJ, Junttila MJ. Sudden cardiac death caused by coronary heart disease. Circulation. 2012;125:1043–52. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.023846.
Stecker EC, Reinier K, Marijon E, Narayanan K, Teodorescu C, Uy-Evanado A, et al. Public health burden of sudden cardiac death in the United States. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:212–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.001034.
Tan NY, Roger VL, Killian JM, Cha Y-M, Noseworthy PA, Dunlay SM. Ventricular arrhythmias among patients with advanced heart failure: a population-based study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e023377. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.023377.
CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. The Lancet. 1999;353:9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)11181-9.
Desai AS, McMurray JJV, Packer M, Swedberg K, Rouleau JL, Chen F, et al. Effect of the angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 compared with enalapril on mode of death in heart failure patients. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1990–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv186.
Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199103213241201.
Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJV, Gøtzsche O, Lévy S, Crijns H, et al. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2678–87. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0800456.
Waldo AL, Camm AJ, deRuyter H, Friedman PL, MacNeil DJ, Pauls JF, et al. Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. The SWORD Investigators. Survival With Oral d-Sotalol. The Lancet. 1996;348:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)02149-6.
Frommeyer G, Milberg P, Witte P, Stypmann J, Koopmann M, Lücke M, et al. A new mechanism preventing proarrhythmia in chronic heart failure: rapid phase-III repolarization explains the low proarrhythmic potential of amiodarone in contrast to sotalol in a model of pacing-induced heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:1060–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfr107.
Kirchhof P, Degen H, Franz MR, Eckardt L, Fabritz L, Milberg P, et al. Amiodarone-induced postrepolarization refractoriness suppresses induction of ventricular fibrillation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003;305:257–63. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.102.046755.
Zeppenfeld K, Tfelt-Hansen J, de Riva M, Winkel BG, Behr ER, Blom NA, et al. 2022 ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3997–4126. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac262.
Connolly SJ, Dorian P, Roberts RS, Gent M, Bailin S, Fain ES, et al. Comparison of beta-blockers, amiodarone plus beta-blockers, or sotalol for prevention of shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators: the OPTIC study: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;295:165–71. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.2.165.
The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1576–83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711273372202.
Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Rüppel R. Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). Circulation. 2000;102:748–54. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.102.7.748.
Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS, et al. Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS): a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. Circulation. 2000;101:1297–302. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.101.11.1297.
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H, et al. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1933–40. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199612263352601.
Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1882–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199912163412503.
Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877–83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa013474.
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225–37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043399.
Peichl P, Rafaj A, Kautzner J. Management of ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure: current perspectives. Heart Rhythm. 2021;O2(2):796–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2021.08.007.
Køber L, Thune JJ, Nielsen JC, Haarbo J, Videbæk L, Korup E, et al. Defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1221–30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1608029.
Beggs SAS, Jhund PS, Jackson CE, McMurray JJV, Gardner RS. Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, sudden death and implantable defibrillators: a review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2018;104:144–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310850.
Könemann H, Dagres N, Merino JL, Sticherling C, Zeppenfeld K, Tfelt-Hansen J, Eckardt L. Spotlight on the 2022 ESC guideline management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death: 10 novel key aspects. Europace. 2023;25:5. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad091.
Bruch C, Gotzmann M, Stypmann J, Wenzelburger F, Rothenburger M, Grude M, et al. Electrocardiography and Doppler echocardiography for risk stratification in patients with chronic heart failure: incremental prognostic value of QRS duration and a restrictive mitral filling pattern. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1072–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.064.
Könemann H, Ellermann C, Zeppenfeld K, Eckardt L. Management of ventricular arrhythmias worldwide: comparison of the latest ESC, AHA/ACC/HRS, and CCS/CHRS guidelines. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023;9:715–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2022.12.008.
Vogler J, Breithardt G, Eckardt L. Bradyarrhythmias and conduction blocks. Rev Esp Cardiol (English Edition). 2012;65:656–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2012.01.027.
Cleland JG, Abraham WT, Linde C, Gold MR, Young JB, Claude Daubert J, et al. An individual patient meta-analysis of five randomized trials assessing the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:3547–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht290.
Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3427–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab364.
Sapp JL, Wells GA, Parkash R, Stevenson WG, Blier L, Sarrazin J-F, et al. Ventricular tachycardia ablation versus escalation of antiarrhythmic drugs. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:111–21. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513614.
Willems S, Tilz RR, Steven D, Kääb S, Wegscheider K, Gellér L, et al. Preventive or deferred ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and implantable defibrillator (BERLIN VT): a multicenter randomized trial. Circulation. 2020;141:1057–67. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043400.
Eckardt L, Willems S. Early mortality after vt ablation: “the remedy worse than the disease”? JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023;9:833–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2022.11.004.
Arenal Á, Ávila P, Jiménez-Candil J, Tercedor L, Calvo D, Arribas F, et al. Substrate ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for symptomatic ventricular tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:1441–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.050.
Della Bella P, Baratto F, Vergara P, Bertocchi P, Santamaria M, Notarstefano P, et al. Does timing of ventricular tachycardia ablation affect prognosis in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator? Results From the multicenter randomized PARTITA trial. Circulation. 2022;145:1829–38. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059598.
Kahle A-K, Jungen C, Alken F-A, Scherschel K, Willems S, Pürerfellner H, et al. Management of ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: contemporary armamentarium. Europace. 2022;24:538–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab274.
Tung R, Xue Y, Chen M, Jiang C, Shatz DY, Besser SA, et al. First-line catheter ablation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in cardiomyopathy concurrent with defibrillator implantation: the PAUSE-SCD randomized trial. Circulation. 2022;145:1839–49. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.060039.
Prasitlumkum N, Navaravong L, Desai A, Desai D, Cheungpasitporn W, Rattanawong P, et al. Impact of early ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:2054–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.07.005.
Baman TS, Lange DC, Ilg KJ, Gupta SK, Liu T-Y, Alguire C, et al. Relationship between burden of premature ventricular complexes and left ventricular function. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:865–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.03.036.
Steven D, Pott C, Bittner A, Sultan A, Wasmer K, Hoffmann BA, et al. Idiopathic ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias from the great cardiac vein: challenges and risks of catheter ablation. Int J Cardiol. 2013;169:366–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.09.008.
Ribbing M, Wasmer K, Mönnig G, Kirchhof P, Loh P, Breithardt G, et al. Endocardial mapping of right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia using noncontact activation mapping. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003;14:602–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2003.02180.x.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.K. and L.E. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared figures and tables, S.G.E., C.E., and G.F. substantially contributed to the literature research and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Lars Eckardt received lecture fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Daichii Sankyo, Medtronic, Biotronik, Sanofi Aventis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Sati Güler-Eren, Christian Ellermann, Gerrit Frommeyer, and Hilke Könemann declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Könemann, H., Güler-Eren, S., Ellermann, C. et al. Antiarrhythmic Treatment in Heart Failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 21, 22–32 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-023-00642-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-023-00642-w