Integrating new approaches to atrial fibrillation management: the 6th AFNET/EHRA Consensus Conference

The purpose of this study was to provide an updated worldwide report on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). A questionnaire with 46 questions was sent to 521 centers from 24 countries in 4 continents. Complete interviews were collected from 182 centers, of which 85 reported to have performed 20,825 catheter ablation procedures on 16,309 patients with AF between 2003 and 2006. The median number of procedures per center was 245 (range, 2 to 2715). All centers included paroxysmal AF, 85.9% also included persistent and 47.1% also included long-lasting AF. Carto-guided left atrial circumferential ablation (48.2% of patients) and Lasso-guided ostial electric disconnection (27.4%) were the most commonly used techniques. Efficacy data were analyzed with centers representing the unit of analysis. Of 16,309 patients with full disclosure of outcome data, 10 488 (median, 70.0%; interquartile range, 57.7% to 75.4%) became asymptomatic without antiarrhythmic drugs and another 2047 (10.0%; 0.5% to 17.1%) became asymptomatic in the presence of previously ineffective antiarrhythmic drugs over 18 (range, 3 to 24) months of follow-up. Success rates free of antiarrhythmic drugs and overall success rates were significantly larger in 9590 patients with paroxysmal AF (74.9% and 83.2%) than in 2800 patients with persistent AF (64.8% and 75.0%) and 1108 patients with long-lasting AF (63.1% and 72.3%) (P<0.0001). Major complications were reported in 741 patients (4.5%). When analyzed in a large number of electrophysiology laboratories worldwide, catheter ablation of AF shows to be effective in approximately 80% of patients after 1.3 procedures per patient, with approximately 70% of them not requiring further antiarrhythmic drugs during intermediate follow-up.

Approximately 10% of ischemic strokes are associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) first diagnosed at the time of stroke. Detecting asymptomatic AF would provide an opportunity to prevent these strokes by instituting appropriate anticoagulation. The AF-SCREEN international collaboration was formed in September 2015 to promote discussion and research about AF screening as a strategy to reduce stroke and death and to provide advocacy for implementation of country-specific AF screening programs. During 2016, 60 expert members of AF-SCREEN, including physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, health economists, and patient advocates, were invited to prepare sections of a draft document. In August 2016, 51 members met in Rome to discuss the draft document and consider the key points arising from it using a Delphi process. These key points emphasize that screen-detected AF found at a single timepoint or by intermittent ECG recordings over 2 weeks is not a benign condition and, with additional stroke factors, carries sufficient risk of stroke to justify consideration of anticoagulation. With regard to the methods of mass screening, handheld ECG devices have the advantage of providing a verifiable ECG trace that guidelines require for AF diagnosis and would therefore be preferred as screening tools. Certain patient groups, such as those with recent embolic stroke of uncertain source (ESUS), require more intensive monitoring for AF. Settings for screening include various venues in both the community and the clinic, but they must be linked to a pathway for appropriate diagnosis and management for screening to be effective. It is recognized that health resources vary widely between countries and health systems, so the setting for AF screening should be both country- and health system-specific. Based on current knowledge, this white paper provides a strong case for AF screening now while recognizing that large randomized outcomes studies would be helpful to strengthen the evidence base.

Rate control is often the therapy of choice for atrial fibrillation. Guidelines recommend strict rate control, but this is not based on clinical evidence. We hypothesized that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict rate control for preventing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. We randomly assigned 614 patients with permanent atrial fibrillation to undergo a lenient rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <110 beats per minute) or a strict rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <80 beats per minute and heart rate during moderate exercise <110 beats per minute). The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke, systemic embolism, bleeding, and life-threatening arrhythmic events. The duration of follow-up was at least 2 years, with a maximum of 3 years. The estimated cumulative incidence of the primary outcome at 3 years was 12.9% in the lenient-control group and 14.9% in the strict-control group, with an absolute difference with respect to the lenient-control group of -2.0 percentage points (90% confidence interval, -7.6 to 3.5; P<0.001 for the prespecified noninferiority margin). The frequencies of the components of the primary outcome were similar in the two groups. More patients in the lenient-control group met the heart-rate target or targets (304 [97.7%], vs. 203 [67.0%] in the strict-control group; P<0.001) with fewer total visits (75 [median, 0], vs. 684 [median, 2]; P<0.001). The frequencies of symptoms and adverse events were similar in the two groups. In patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, lenient rate control is as effective as strict rate control and is easier to achieve. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00392613.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society