Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, controlled study
- PMID: 9737514
- DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.98.10.953
Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, controlled study
Abstract
Background: Uncontrolled studies have suggested that atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implantation have beneficial effects on quality of life in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods and results: We performed a multicenter, controlled, randomized, 12-month evaluation of the clinical effects of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker (Abl+Pm) versus pharmacological (drug) treatment in 66 patients with chronic (lasting >6 months) AF who had clinically manifest heart failure and heart rate >90 bpm on 3 standard ECGs recorded at rest during stable clinical conditions on different days. Before completion of the study, withdrawals occurred in 8 patients of the drug group and in 4 patients of the Abl+Pm group. At the end of the 12 months, the 28 Abl+Pm patients who completed the study showed lower scores in palpitations (-78%; P=0.000) and effort dyspnea (-22%; P=0.05) than the 26 of the drug group. Lower scores, although not significant, were also observed for exercise intolerance (-20%), easy fatigue (-17%), chest discomfort (-50%), Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (-14%), New York Heart Association functional classification (-4%), and Activity scale (-12%). The intrapatient comparison between enrollment and month 12 showed that in the Abl+Pm group, all variables except easy fatigue improved significantly from 14% to 82%. However, because an improvement was also observed in the drug group, the difference between the 2 groups was significant only for palpitations (P=0.000), effort dyspnea (P=0.01), exercise intolerance (P=0.005), easy fatigue (P=0.02), and chest discomfort (P=0.02). Cardiac performance, evaluated by means of standard echocardiogram and exercise test, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups and remained stable over time.
Conclusions: In patients with heart failure and chronic AF, Abl+Pm treatment is effective and superior to drug therapy in controlling symptoms, although its efficacy appears to be less than that observed in uncontrolled studies because some improvement can also be expected in medically treated patients. Cardiac performance is not modified by the treatment.
Comment in
-
Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure: the intersection of two common diseases.Circulation. 1998 Sep 8;98(10):941-2. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.98.10.941. Circulation. 1998. PMID: 9737511 No abstract available.
-
Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation.Circulation. 1999 Jun 8;99(22):2966; author reply 2966-7. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.22.2966. Circulation. 1999. PMID: 10359745 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
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 Oct 21;96(8):2617-24. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.96.8.2617. Circulation. 1997. PMID: 9355902 Clinical Trial.
-
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 Electrophysiol. 1999 Nov;22(11):1634-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1999.tb00383.x. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999. PMID: 10598967 Clinical Trial.
-
Four-year efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy on exercise tolerance and disease progression: the importance of performing atrioventricular junction ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Aug 15;48(4):734-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.056. Epub 2006 Jul 24. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006. PMID: 16904542 Clinical Trial.
-
Rate control in atrial fibrillation.Lancet. 2016 Aug 20;388(10046):818-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31258-2. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 27560277 Review.
-
Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Heart Lung Circ. 2019 May;28(5):707-718. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.10.022. Epub 2018 Nov 17. Heart Lung Circ. 2019. PMID: 30509786 Review.
Cited by
-
[Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in congestive heart failure-- non-medication treatment].Herz. 1999 Oct;24(6):485-8. doi: 10.1007/BF03044436. Herz. 1999. PMID: 10546152 German. No abstract available.
-
A perspective on rate control in the treatment of atrial fibrillation.Clin Cardiol. 2004 Mar;27(3):121-4. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960270304. Clin Cardiol. 2004. PMID: 15049376 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Atrioventricular Junction Ablation In Atrial Fibrillation: Choosing The Right Patient And Pacing Device.J Atr Fibrillation. 2015 Aug 31;8(2):1253. doi: 10.4022/jafib.1253. eCollection 2015 Aug-Sep. J Atr Fibrillation. 2015. PMID: 27957188 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Safety of His-bundle ablation after pacemaker implantation in patients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation.Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2025 Jun;36(2):132-137. doi: 10.1007/s00399-025-01082-w. Epub 2025 Jun 5. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2025. PMID: 40471274 English.
-
Management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Heart Fail Rev. 2025 Jun 29. doi: 10.1007/s10741-025-10536-9. Online ahead of print. Heart Fail Rev. 2025. PMID: 40583088 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous