Post Av Nodal Ablation Evaluation Essay

Atrioventricular Nodal Ablation and Pacemaker Therapy: Role in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation


1Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
2Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
3Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
4Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

ABSTRACT. Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide and causes increased morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of AF is on the rise in the United States, with a projected 5.6–12 million Americans carrying this diagnosis by 2050. First-line treatment of AF remains medical therapy with rate control or rhythm control strategies. In patients who fail first-line medical therapy, atrioventricular nodal (AVN) ablation with permanent pacemaker insertion is an established treatment modality. Benefits: AVN ablation and ventricular pacing decreases symptoms, improves quality of life, and decreases hospitalization compared to medical therapy in patients with medically refractory AF. In patients with AF and heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy, AVN ablation offers a probable survival benefit. AF has a high prevalence in elderly people, and AVN ablation can potentially decrease polypharmacy in this population while effectively controlling heart rate. Complications: AVN ablation is a safe procedure with high success rates. The risk of sudden cardiac death after ablation is mitigated by pacing at a higher rate temporarily. Long-term right ventricular apical pacing has been linked to worsening of heart failure, and there is a need to identify risk factors that contribute to worsening of heart failure in these patients. Future directions: The PACIFIC trial is currently underway and compares pharmacotherapy, AVN ablation with conventional pacing, and AV nodal ablation with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This review article describes the current evidence regarding AVN ablation and pacing as a therapeutic modality, with a highlight on ablation in patients undergoing CRT and ablation in elderly people.

The authors report no conflicts of interest for the published content.
Manuscript received November 5, 2012, final version accepted March 1, 2013.

Address correspondence to: Samuel J. Asirvatham, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail:

Introduction and epidemiology

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common condition causing increased morbidity and mortality. In 2010, the prevalence of AF in the United States was estimated to be between 2.7 and 6.1 million. This is expected to rise to about 5.6–12 million in 2050. At 40 years of age, the lifetime risk of developing AF is 26% for men and 23% for women.1 AF is associated with increased incidence of death in men and women and is a risk factor for stroke, dementia, and heart failure.

AF and heart failure frequently coexist and beget each other. It is estimated that 40% of individuals with AF will develop heart failure and vice versa. In patients with New York Heart association (NYHA) class I heart failure, AF is present in < 5% patients. In patients with NYHA class IV heart failure, the proportion of patients with coexistent AF increases to 50%.2 In addition, new-onset AF in patients with heart failure confers a mortality risk in both men and women. The hazard ratio for mortality is 1.6 in men and 2.7 in women.3 AF and heart failure have been described as major epidemics in contemporary cardiovascular medicine.4

Therapeutic options for drug refractory atrial fibrillation

Traditional treatment for AF includes pharmacotherapy designed to revert and maintain the patient in sinus rhythm (rhythm control) or decrease the heart rate and provide anticoagulation (rate control). In patients who are refractory to medical management of AF, options include catheter or surgical ablation of AF and atrioventricular nodal (AVN) ablation and pacemaker insertion—also known as the “ablate and pace” strategy. In patients who are refractory to pharmacologic interventions, the “ablate and pace” strategy is increasingly used. It can be considered as an extreme form of rate control.5 The AV node is ablated using radiofrequency energy, following which a permanent pacemaker is required for maintenance of adequate ventricular rate. There is lifelong pacemaker dependency and need for anticoagulation following this procedure.

Although AVN ablation and pacemaker therapy is effective in rate control and alleviates symptoms, pacing-mediated dyssynchrony and heart failure have been observed in selected patient populations. The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) (cardiac resynchronization therapy CRT) and septal pacing following AVN ablation are currently under investigation. We will review the current indications for AVN ablation and pacing in AF based on currently available evidence.

AVN ablation and pacing in current clinical practice

According to the 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS updates for management of AF, AVN ablation may be beneficial in patients with medically refractory AF. This approach should be considered in patients who cannot maintain sinus rhythm or cannot be adequately rate controlled by pharmacotherapy.6,7 The long-term safety of the procedure was underlined in a prospective cohort study of 350 patients by Ozcan et al.8 in 2001, which revealed that the survival of patients undergoing AVN ablation and pacing was similar to patients receiving drug therapy for AF. Previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and requirement for other cardiac drugs were predictors of death in multivariate analysis. In the absence of these risk factors, survival was similar to expected survival of the age and sex-matched general population.8 A recent meta-analysis by Chatterjee et al.9 compared AVN ablation with pharmacotherapy in patients with drug refractory AF. Of the five studies included in the efficacy analysis, four were randomized trials, comprising 314 subjects in total. The efficacy analysis demonstrated that AVN ablation improves symptoms and quality of life (QoL) significantly in patients with medically refractory disease when compared with pharmacotherapy alone. There was non-significant yet modest improvement in exercise tolerance and ejection fraction (EF) with AVN ablation. In patients with reduced systolic function at baseline, there was modest and significant improvement in EF in the AVN ablation group compared with pharmacotherapy alone (4% greater; 95% CI 3.11–4.89). There was minimum heterogeneity for this result (I2 = 0%). Exercise capacity was similar in both groups, irrespective of baseline systolic function. There were only 10 deaths in the studies included in the efficacy analysis, and conclusions regarding the effects of AVN ablation on mortality could not be drawn.

The effectiveness analysis included 11 observational or prospective single-armed studies and yielded a total of 810 patients. There was a mean increase in exercise duration of 1.19 min in patients undergoing AVN ablation (95% CI 0.52–1.86). There was a mean increase in EF by 4.80% (95% CI 2.01–7.58) in patients undergoing AVN ablation (I2 = 78%). Again, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with baseline systolic dysfunction had greater improvement in EF after AVN ablation (7.44%; 95% CI 5.4–9.5) with minimal heterogeneity for this result (I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in systolic function between the two groups in the subgroup of patients with normal systolic function at baseline. Thus, the results of trials conducted so far demonstrate that AVN ablation is a safe procedure, resulting in improvements in symptoms and QoL irrespective of left ventricular (LV) function and modest improvements in systolic function and exercise capacity in patients with baseline LV dysfunction (Table 1).

Catheter ablation procedures involving pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and wide area circumferential ablation are another option for treatment of drug refractory AF. These procedures provide good control of AF in the short term.10 A randomized trial by Khan et al.5 comparing AVN ablation and catheter ablation in patients with drug refractory AF demonstrated superiority of catheter ablation over AVN ablation. Patients in the catheter ablation group had greater improvements in EF, exercise tolerance and QoL at 6 months' follow-up. These effects are probably due to reversal of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy in patients who are likely to have poor rate control. About half the patients in this trial had paroxysmal AF and the other half had persistent AF. Further evidence in support of catheter ablation for drug refractory AF was provided by an observational nested case–control study of 1000 patients who reported a survival benefit with PVI compared with AVN ablation or pharmacotherapy over a 7-year follow-up period. It is difficult to utilize the findings of this study in clinical practice, as the study was likely to be confounded due to non-randomized selection of therapy.11

The enthusiasm for catheter ablation has been tempered by the results of recent studies that report a high rate of recurrence of AF, especially in patients with persistent and longstanding persistent AF.12 Other factors that have been linked with recurrence of AF after catheter ablation include greater age, permanent AF, hypertension, greater left atrial diameter, and underlying diabetes mellitus.12,13 These groups may be better suited to AVN ablation, which is a more permanent solution than PVI procedures.

AF is a risk factor for dementia, as evidenced in a recent meta-analysis that studied risk of dementia in patients with AF (HR = 1.42 95% CI 1.17–1.72, p<0.001).14 Another benefit of AVN ablation is improvement in brain perfusion and cognitive performance, as evidenced in a small study by Efimova et al.15 Ninety-four percent of patients with medically refractory AF and poorly controlled ventricular conduction had cognitive deficits in this study. Verbal memories, visual memories, attention, psychomotor speed, and learning ability were improved in all 17 patients studied after AVN ablation and pacemaker insertion. This may have important implications while choosing treatment in an aging population.

Right ventricular apical pacing in AV nodal ablation

Studies from before the turn of the century have raised concerns about chronic right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing. It was demonstrated that RVA pacing can cause or worsen mitral regurgitation and can worsen hemodynamic status in patients with pre-existing ventricular dilatation.16,17 A recent meta-analysis of four trials comparing RVA pacing to BVP did not demonstrate a decrease in mortality with BVP (risk ratio: 0.85, 95% CI, 0.40–1.82).18 In the subgroup of patients with baseline systolic dysfunction, BVP offered a non-significant reduction in cardiac mortality (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 1.45–3.99). There was no difference in exercise tolerance, but a subgroup analysis of patients with NYHA II/III symptoms showed increases in exercise tolerance with BVP in this population. EF was modestly improved in the BVP group, and there was moderate heterogeneity for this result (I2 = 53%). QoL was significantly improved in patients receiving BVP in two studies, with one study reporting no difference in QoL between the two groups. One of the studies included in this analysis was the PAVE (Post AV Nodal Ablation Evaluation) study, which showed that with BVP, improvement in EF, functional parameters, and QoL were greater in patients with EF <45% at baseline or NYHA II/III symptoms18 (Table 2).

These findings are in contrast to results of an observational study that demonstrated modest significant improvement in the short term in patients with AVN ablation and RVA pacing. There was no difference in EF with long-term (>1 year) follow-up. High preablation heart rate was a univariate predictor of improved EF, and EF >40 was a predictor for decline in EF in the multivariate model.19 Half the patients without mitral regurgitation developed mild mitral regurgitation, which did not result in a decrease in LV function in these patients. There are differences in populations studied in observational studies and clinical trials. Observational studies commonly have greater numbers of patients who have exhausted all therapeutic options. This difference in study populations may account for some of the differences in the results of the observational study compared with the clinical trials.

There is much interest in determining which subsets of patients are predisposed to worsening of LV function after RVA pacing. The main determinants of worsening LV function after RVA pacing include baseline low EF, history of heart failure, or myocardial infarction and QRS prolongation.20 Owing to a propensity to worsen regurgitating lesions with RVA pacing, patients with severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation, RV dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension are poor candidates for AVN ablation. Further studies are required to delineate predictors of poor response to RVA pacing and also to assess benefit of CRT instead of RVA pacing in these groups.

Ablating the AV node in patients undergoing CRT

CRT is an established treatment modality for patients in sinus rhythm with EF <35%, QRS>120 ms and NYHA class III or ambulatory NYHA class IV patients.21,22 The ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC guidelines both advise that AVN ablation may be required in patients with AF with pre-existing indications for CRT (Class 2A recommendation, level of evidence B). A survey of patients in Europe established that 23% of patients receiving CRT also had AF.23 In 2004, a small prospective cohort study determined that response to CRT was poorer in patients with concomitant AF.24 The subgroup of AF patients who had previous AVN ablation had decreased severity ofsymptoms, improved QoL, improved exercise tolerance, and improved EF when compared with patients undergoing therapy with rate-controlling medications.

There have been several retrospective and small prospective studies that have addressed the role of AVN ablation in patients with AF undergoing CRT. Recently, Ganesan et al.25 performed a meta-analysis of six of the largest retrospective and prospective studies that had outcomes reported. Three studies that had reported mortality data supported decreased all-cause mortality in patients undergoing AVN ablation in addition to CRT (risk ratio 0.42; 95% CI 0.26–0.68). There was also decreased cardiovascular mortality in the AVN ablation group (risk ratio 0.44; 95% CI 0.24–0.81). There was low heterogeneity for this result.26-28 There was a trend towards improvement of EF that was not significant and had high heterogeneity. There was significant improvement in NYHA class (risk ratio−0.52; 95% CI −0.87 to −0.17; I2  =  59%) in the AVN ablation group, and QoL scores were significantly improved in one study and not improved in another.

A reason for improved survival and performance of patients who have undergone AV nodal ablation in this population is a greater percentage of BVP. BVP reduces mortality in patients with CRT when it gets close to 100%. It is difficult to attain a high BVP percentage in AF patients who are medically controlled.29 A 12-lead Holter study of patients not responding to CRT shows high prevalence of fusion (ventricular-sensed response) and pseudo-fusion beats in patients with coexisting AF. Rate irregularities in AF patients result in this finding and can decrease % BVP.30 However, in the meta-analysis, as well as the study by Dong et al.,28 better survival is observed in AVN ablation patients even if the non-ablated patients have high percent BVP.25 However, it is difficult to accurately calculate % BVP in AF patients without AVN ablation because of the aforementioned high rate of fusion and pseudo-fusion beats (Figure 1). These fusion (ventricular sensed response) and pseudo-fusion beats would be calculated as BVP beats, but in reality the benefit of BVP-mediated synchrony is likely to be incomplete from these fusion and pseudo-fusion beats. Thus the true % BVP is less than the calculated % BVP in patients with AF who have not undergone AVN ablation. This could potentially explain the findings in the study by Dong et al.28

Figure 1: Twelve-lead electrocardiogram showing biventricular paced beats in a patient with atrial fibrillation without AV nodal ablation. Thin arrow demonstrates biventricular (BV) pacing after ventricular sensed event. This ventricular sensed response is counted as a BV paced beat but unlikely to provide a complete BV-mediated synchrony effect. Broken arrow demonstrates complete BV pacing in the setting of AF. Thick arrow demonstrates a pseudo-fusion beat when pacing was initiated after a premature ventricular contraction (PVC). Both ventricular sensed response and pseudo-fusion beats are less effective than BV pacing.

Since there was no difference in defibrillator or pacing device utilization in patients with or without AV nodal ablation, one would expect the survival benefit to be due to a decrease in heart failure events. The non-significant rise in EF in patients with AVN ablation does not support this notion. Again, the survival benefit in the absence of improved EF could be explained by a lower percentage of true BVP beats in patients without AV nodal ablation. This effect may also be due to measurement of follow-up EF only in survivors in the non-AVN ablation group, who would be expected to have better LV function and EF, which might have led to their better prognosis.31

There are no published trials that examine the role of PVI in AF patients undergoing CRT for treatment of heart failure.

Complications of AVN ablation

AVN ablation is a safe procedure with high success rates and low rates of post-procedural complications. As outlined by Chatterjee et al.9 in the safety review portion of their meta-analysis comprising 5,632 patients, the most common cause of morbidity was the need for a left-sided procedure after a failed right-sided approach (6.9%). Spontaneous recurrence of AVN conduction requiring redo procedures occurred in 2.9% cases. The incidence of death within 30 days of the procedure was 0.27%. Other reported complications included malignant arrhythmias, lead failure, stroke, hematoma, infection, pleural effusion, pericarditis, pseudoaneurysm, RV perforation, and pneumothorax (all under 1%).9 Rare complications like the Gerbode defect (left ventricle to right atriumshunt) can also occur after AVN ablation.32

Patients who have undergone AVN ablation are predisposed to sudden cardiac death (SCD) after the procedure. This risk is highest in the days and few weeks following the procedure, in patients paced at <70 bpm, but some cases of late SCDs have also been reported. There are several mechanisms that contribute to the post-procedural proarrhythmic state. Notably, studies report post-procedural bradycardia-dependent prolongation of ventricular repolarization, leading to prolongation of the QT interval. This puts patients at risk for torsade de pointes and SCD.33,34 Other reported mechanisms include change in sequence of ventricular activation following RVA pacing, increased sympathetic activity due to sudden decrease in heart rate, increased heterogeneity of repolarization due to lower heart rate, and hypokalemia as a result of antiarrhythmic medication.

QT interval prolongation decreases over time, and the degree of prolongation is reduced by temporary pacing >80 bpm post-procedurally for a week. Patients with low EF, coronary artery disease, and diabetes are at greater risk for SCD.35,36 With temporary pacing at a higher rate, the incidence of death and SCD at 1-year follow-up is similar to those for patients treated with pharmacotherapy.8,37 In a recent report in abstract form, Wang et al.38 reported the incidence of SCD likely related to the procedure was less than 1% after implementing the practice of temporary faster pacing rate after AVN ablation. Another concern with AVN ablation is lifelong pacemaker dependency and risk of morbidity associated with pacemaker failure. This is a very rare complication and was not reported in both meta-analyses published in 2012.9,25

Evolving role in elderly and new methods of pacing

AVN ablation obviates the need for further pharmacotherapy to control the ventricular rate. This may be of potential benefit in populations that are adversely affected by polypharmacy or drug–drug interactions. Such populations include elderly people and patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency.39 An average elderly patient has eight drug prescriptions, and more than 75% of elderly individuals have at least one drug prescription.40 Medications for AF superimposed on already prescribed medications for other comorbidities make this age group vulnerable to drug–drug interactions. Elderly populations commonly have comorbidities like hypertension and diabetes mellitus, impairments in hepatic and renal function, and often have longstanding disease, all of which make them poorer candidates for PVI procedures compared with AVN ablation. Also, catheter ablation frequently requires repeat procedures which may not be well tolerated in elderly populations. Elderly patients are also at higher risk for adverse effects from antiarrhythmic drugs such as bradycardia, orthostatic hypotension, urinary retention, and falls, which are due to drug–drug interactions and changes in pharmacokinetics with age.41 In addition, AF is a risk factor for development of dementia, a common problem in the elderly population. There is suggestion that there is a high incidence of cognitive deficits in patients with poor rate control and that adequate rate control can lead to improvement in cognitive symptoms.15 AVN ablation can provide reliable and long-lasting rate control, and it would be expected that cognitive symptoms in elderly patients with poor rate control will be improved by AVN ablation (Table 3).

RVA pacing has been identified as a factor associated with worsening of LV function.42,43 While activation spreads from apex to base of the ventricles in RVA pacing, there is considerable intra- and interventricular delay in the spread of activation. These delays promote interventricular dyssynchrony resulting in adverse modeling of the LV and decrease in the EF over time. Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing close to the interventricular septum can potentially result in more physiologic activation of both ventricles, as this location is closer to the normal conducting system of the ventricles. Compared to septal pacing, RVA pacing has been shown to cause more regional wall motion abnormalities, prolonged QRS duration, and interventricular mechanical delay in the short term.44 The spread of activation is from apex to base of the ventricles in both RVA pacing and RVOT pacing. However, the speed at which the mechanical wavefront of activation spreads is faster in RVOT pacing, which may account for some of its benefits.45 Long-term follow-up in small studies has demonstrated significantly lower EF, LA dilatation and remodeling, higher LV end systolic and diastolic volumes, and lower survival in RVA-paced patients than septal pacing.45-47

Most of these studies are retrospective studies or prospective studies with a small sample of patients. Also, the population studied is a mix of sick sinus syndrome and complete heart block patients. Sick sinus syndrome patients do not have high percent ventricular pacing rates and can offset the negative effects of RVA pacing in AVN ablation in the statistical analysis.48 A well-designed large prospective trial will go a long way in answering which is the best pacing modality for patients with AV nodal ablation, RVA pacing, RVOT pacing, or BVP.

Special consideration in patients with ventricular dysfunction and possible need for resynchronization

Complex decision making is involved when dealing with a patient who has significant ventricular dysfunction that is least expected to be as a result of AF and rapid rates. Because of the ventricular dysfunction following AVN ablation, a resynchronization device should be strongly considered. On the other hand, one may anticipate significant recovery of ventricular function following AVN ablation, and thus would not need resynchronization ablation in the long run in the absence of anticipated heart failure symptoms.49-51 In our practice, we use the clinical history, examination, and analysis of echocardiographic findings to try and make these decisions. For example, if the patient has known ventricular dysfunction from coronary disease or other causes similar to the rapid AF, we favor placing a defibrillator with a LV lead (CRT, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). On the other hand, if ventricular wall thickness is normal, diastolic function is relatively normal, and there is no other even partial explanation for ventricular dysfunction from other disease processes, we place a non-resynchronization standard pacemaker and observe the patient. We counsel the patient on the possibility that an upgrade to a resynchronization therapy device or possibly a defibrillator may be required.

Conclusion and future directions

In summary, the pros and cons of drug therapy in AF have been established for a long time. Additional long-term data are being gathered about PVI therapy. Outcomes of PVI procedures such as improvement of symptoms and QoL are encouraging in younger patients with paroxysmal AF. However, a high recurrence rate in patients with persistent AF, in patients with high risk, and the lack of data on the impact of stroke and survival would warrant caution in a wide application of PVI. There is logical consideration of an earlier use of AVN ablation in older patients with persistent and symptomatic AF.

Conventional RVA pacing is effective in alleviating symptoms, improving QoL, and reducing hospital admission and drug use. RVA pacing-induced ventricular dysfunction and heart failure is present in selected patients, although risk factors to identify these patients are currently absent. Septal pacing in the RVOT may have a lesser effect on production of ventricular dyssynchrony than RVA pacing. Randomized trials and observational studies differ significantly in patient selection, scope, and size of the study population and length of follow-up, which may account for the differences in their results.

There are no current randomized trials that adequately compare AVN ablation to catheter ablation in patients who have failed medical therapy. There exists a need for larger randomized trials with longer follow-up to adequately address this issue. The choice of procedure must be individualized for patients with refractory AF.

There is evidence supporting the use of AVN ablation in patients undergoing CRT with a recent meta-analysis reporting benefits in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AVN ablation patients treated with CRT compared to patients without AVN ablation. Further studies are needed to ascertain this prospectively.

The Pacing and AV Node Ablation Compared to Drug Therapy in Symptomatic Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Clinical Trial (PACIFIC trial) is currently under development;52 a pilot study has recently been completed, although results have not been reported. The PACIFIC pivotal trial will randomize elderly patients with drug refractory symptomatic AF to pharmacologic therapy, AVN ablation with conventional pacemaker implantation, or AVN ablation with CRT pacemaker implantation. The trial will be sufficiently large to assess the endpoints of survival, QoL, exercise capacity, stroke, and hospitalization. Because the number of elderly patients with symptomatic AF is expected to rapidly increase over the next several years, results from the PACIFIC trial will be of great help in guiding the management of these patients.

The indications for CRT continue to be refined. The results of the Resynchronization/defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) and Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial – Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trials endorsed lower mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure patients with NYHA class I/II, EF <35%, and QRS <120 undergoing CRT.53,54 Patients with AF had a lesser effect on the outcome in patients without AF in the MADIT-CRT trial. The outcomes for AF were not different in the RAFT trial. There is a need for studies evaluating the role of AVN ablation in patients undergoing CRT with better NYHA class at baseline.


  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2012; 125(1):e2-e220.
  2. Maisel WH and Stevenson L.W. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and rationale for therapy. Am J Cardiol, 2003; 91(6A):2D-8D.
  3. Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, et al. Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their joint influence on mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation, 2003; 107(23):2920-5.
  4. Braunwald E Shattuck lecture—cardiovascular medicine at the turn of the millennium: triumphs, concerns, and opportunities. N Engl J Med, 1997; 337(19):1360-9.
  5. Khan MN, Jais P, Cummings J, et al. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med, 2008; 359(17):1778-85.
  6. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011; 57(11):e101-98.
  7. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GY, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Europace, 2010; 12(10):1360-420.
  8. Ozcan C, Jahangir A, Friedman PA, et al. Long-term survival after ablation of the atrioventricular node and implantation of a permanent pacemaker in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med, 2001; 344(14):1043-51.
  9. Chatterjee NA, Upadhyay GA, Ellenbogen KA, et al. Atrioventricular nodal ablation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2012; 5(1):68-76.
  10. Jais P, Cauchemez B, Macle L, et al. Catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: the A4 study. Circulation, 2008; 118(24):2498-505.
  11. Sonne K, Patel D, Mohanty P, et al. Pulmonary vein antrum isolation, atrioventricular junction ablation, and antiarrhythmic drugs combined with direct current cardioversion: survival rates at 7 years follow-up. J Interv Card Electrophysiol, 2009; 26(2):121-6.
  12. Wokhlu A, Hodge DO, Monahan KH, et al. Long-term outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation: impact and predictors of very late recurrence. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2010; 21(10):1071-8.
  13. Berruezo A, Tamborero D, Mont L, et al. Pre-procedural predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence after circumferential pulmonary vein ablation. Eur Heart J, 2007; 28(7):836-41.
  14. Santangeli P, Di Biase L, Bai R, et al. Atrial Fibrillation and the Risk of Incident Dementia: A Meta-Analysis. Heart Rhythm, 2012.
  15. Efimova I, Efimova N, Chernov V, Popov S and Lishmanov Y. Ablation and pacing: improving brain perfusion and cognitive function in patients with atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled ventricular rates. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2012; 35(3):320-6.
  16. Twidale N, Manda V, Holliday R, et al. Mitral regurgitation after atrioventricular node catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and heart failure: acute hemodynamic features. Am Heart J, 1999; 138(6 Pt 1):1166-75.
  17. Vanderheyden M, Goethals M, Anguera I, et al. Hemodynamic deterioration following radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular conduction system. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1997; 20(10 Pt 1):2422-8.
  18. Chatterjee NA, Upadhyay GA, Ellenbogen KA, Hayes DL and Singh JP. Atrioventricular nodal ablation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing mode. Eur J Heart Fail, 2012; 14(6):661-7.
  19. Chen L, Hodge D, Jahangir A, et al. Preserved left ventricular ejection fraction following atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2008; 19(1):19-27.
  20. Sweeney MO and Hellkamp AS. Heart failure during cardiac pacing. Circulation, 2006; 113(17):2082-8.
  21. Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, et al. 2010 Focused Update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC Guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace, 2010; 12(11):1526-36.
  22. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation, 2008; 117(21):e350-408.
  23. Dickstein K, Bogale N, Priori S, et al. The European cardiac resynchronization therapy survey. Eur Heart J, 2009; 30(20):2450-60.
  24. Molhoek SG, Bax JJ, Bleeker GB, et al. Comparison of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sinus rhythm versus chronic atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol, 2004; 94(12):1506-9.
  25. Ganesan AN, Brooks AG, Roberts-Thomson KC, et al. 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(8):719-26.
  26. Ferreira AM, Adragao P, Cavaco DM, et al. Benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in atrial fibrillation patients vs. patients in sinus rhythm: the role of atrioventricular junction ablation. Europace, 2008; 10(7):809-15.
  27. Gasparini M, Auricchio A, Metra M, et al. Long-term survival in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: the importance of performing atrio-ventricular junction ablation in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J, 2008; 29(13):1644-52.
  28. Dong K, Shen WK, Powell BD, et al. Atrioventricular nodal ablation predicts survival benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm, 2010; 7(9):1240-5.
  29. Hayes DL, Boehmer JP, Day JD, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy and the relationship of percent biventricular pacing to symptoms and survival. Heart Rhythm, 2011; 8(9):1469-75.
  30. Kamath GS, Cotiga D, Koneru JN, et al. The utility of 12-lead Holter monitoring in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation for the identification of nonresponders after cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53(12):1050-5.
  31. Gasparini M and Galimberti P. AV junction ablation in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: the picture is now clear. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012; 59(8):727-9.
  32. Sharma AK, Chander R and Singh JP. AV nodal ablation-induced Gerbode defect (LV-RA Shunt). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2011; 22(11):1288-9.
  33. Nowinski K, Gadler F, Jensen-Urstad M and Bergfeldt L. Transient proarrhythmic state following atrioventricular junction radiofrequency ablation: pathophysiologic mechanisms and recommendations for management. Am J Med, 2002; 113(7):596-602.
  34. Dizon J, Blitzer M, Rubin D, et al. Time dependent changes in duration of ventricular repolarization after AV node ablation: insights into the possible mechanism of postprocedural sudden death. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2000; 23(10 Pt 1):1539-44.
  35. Ozcan C, Jahangir A, Friedman PA, et al. Sudden death after radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002; 40(1):105-10.
  36. Gasparini M, Mantica M, Brignole M, et al. Long-term follow-up after atrioventricular nodal ablation and pacing: low incidence of sudden cardiac death. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2000; 23(11 Pt 2):1925-9.
  37. Betts TR. Atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implant for atrial fibrillation: still a valid treatment in appropriately selected patients. Europace, 2008; 10(4):425-32.
  38. Wang R, Hodge D, Cha Y, et al. Impact Of Pacing Method On The Risk Of Sudden Cardiac Death After Atrioventricular Node Ablation And Pacemaker Implantation In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (abstract), in Heart Rhythm Society, 32nd Annual Scientific Sessions. 2011: San Francisco.
  39. Eleid M, SW. Role of atrioventricular nodal ablationand pacemaker therapy in elderly. patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. Interv. Cardiol, 2011; 3(6):713-720.
  40. Hayes BD, Klein-Schwartz W and Barrueto F, Jr. Polypharmacy and the geriatric patient. Clin Geriatr Med, 2007; 23(2):371-90, vii.
  41. Lee HC, Tl Huang K and Shen WK. Use of antiarrhythmic drugs in elderly patients. J Geriatr Cardiol, 2011; 8(3):184-94.
  42. O'Keefe JH, Jr., Abuissa H, Jones PG, et al. Effect of chronic right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol, 2005; 95(6):771-3.
  43. Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, et al. Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation, 2004; 110(25):3766-72.
  44. Wang F, Shi H, Sun Y, et al. Right ventricular outflow pacing induces less regional wall motion abnormalities in the left ventricle compared with apical pacing. Europace, 2012; 14(3):351-7.
  45. Leong DP, Mitchell AM, Salna I, et al. Long-term mechanical consequences of permanent right ventricular pacing: effect of pacing site. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2010; 21(10):1120-6.
  46. Cano O, Osca J, Sancho-Tello MJ, et al. Comparison of effectiveness of right ventricular septal pacing versus right ventricular apical pacing. Am J Cardiol, 2010; 105(10):1426-32.
  47. Vanerio G, Vidal JL, Fernandez Banizi P, et al. Medium- and long-term survival after pacemaker implant: Improved survival with right ventricular outflow tract pacing. J Interv Card Electrophysiol, 2008; 21(3):195-201.
  48. Inoue K, Okayama H, Nishimura K, et al. Right ventricular septal pacing preserves global left ventricular longitudinal function in comparison with apical pacing: analysis of speckle tracking echocardiography. Circ J, 2011; 75(7):1609-15.
  49. Packer DL, Bardy GH, Worley SJ, et al. Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy: a reversible form of left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol, 1986; 57(8):563-70.
  50. Redfield MM, Kay GN, Jenkins LS, et al. Tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy: a common cause of ventricular dysfunction in patients with atrial fibrillation referred for atrioventricular ablation. Mayo Clin Proc, 2000; 75(8):790-5.
  51. Bunch TJ, Munger TM, Friedman PA, et al. Substrate and procedural predictors of outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2008; 19(10):1009-14.
  52. Bradley DJ and Shen WK. Atrioventricular junction ablation combined with either right ventricular pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy for atrial fibrillation: the need for large-scale randomized trials. Heart Rhythm, 2007; 4(2):224-32.
  53. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med, 2009; 361(14):1329-38.
  54. Tang AS, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. N Engl J Med, 2010; 363(25):2385-95.
  55. Brignole M, Gianfranchi L, Menozzi C, et al. 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; 96(8):2617-24.
  56. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Gianfranchi L, et al. Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, controlled study. Circulation, 1998; 98(10):953-60.
  57. Marshall HJ, Harris ZI, Griffith MJ, Holder RL and Gammage M.D. Prospective randomized study of ablation and pacing versus medical therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: effects of pacing mode and mode-switch algorithm. Circulation, 1999; 99(12):1587-92.
  58. Ueng KC, Tsai TP, Tsai CF, et al. Acute and long-term effects of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker in symptomatic patients with chronic lone atrial fibrillation and normal ventricular response. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2001; 12(3):303-9.
  59. Weerasooriya R, Davis M, Powell A, et al. The Australian Intervention Randomized Control of Rate in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (AIRCRAFT). J Am Coll Cardiol, 2003; 41(10):1697-702.
  60. Doshi RN, Daoud EG, Fellows C, et al. Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation evaluation (the PAVE study). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2005; 16(11):1160-5.
  61. Brignole M, Gammage M, Puggioni E, et al. Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J, 2005; 26(7):712-22.
  62. Orlov MV, Gardin JM, Slawsky M, et al. Biventricular pacing improves cardiac function and prevents further left atrial remodeling in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation after atrioventricular node ablation. Am Heart J, 2010; 159(2):264-70.
  63. Brignole M, Botto G, Mont L, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients undergoing atrioventricular junction ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J, 2011; 32(19):2420-9.



Atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) combined with biventricular (BiV) pacing (AVJA/BiV) is an effective treatment for refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and rapid ventricular response (RVR) associated with heart failure (HF). This study compared the outcomes between patients with non-ischaemic (DCM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) following AVJA/BiV for AF/RVR.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective study of 45 patients, comparing the response to AVJA/BiV in patients with ICM to those with DCM. The study compared (a) the change in echocardiographic parameters of HF (ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricular dimensions) prior to, and at least 6 months post AVJA/BiV; and (b) HF hospitalizations (HFH) and appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies occurring post-procedure. Ejection fraction improved significantly in the DCM group (ΔEF 11.2% ± 11.9; P< 0.01); however, EF remained unchanged (ΔEF 0.5% ± 9.9; P = NS) in the ICM group post-AVJA/BiV. Post-procedurely, HFH were significantly more common (15/18 vs. 4/25; P < 0.0001), and there were significantly more appropriate ICD therapies (9.4 ± 12.3 vs. 2.3 ± 6.1; P = 0.01) in the ICM compared with the DCM group.


After AVJA/BiV, there was significantly less post-procedural echocardiographic reverse remodelling, and more HFH in the ICM compared with the DCM group. In addition, significantly more appropriate ICD therapies occurred in ICM patients post-procedure. These differences may be due to the presence of more extensive discrete myocardial scar in patients with ICM. Furthermore, it is possible that tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy plays more of a causative role in HF in patients with AF and DCM than those with ICM.

Atrial fibrillation, Biventricular pacing, AV node ablation, Ischaemic cardiomyopathy, Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

What's new?

  • Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy have a significant improvement in EF, hospitalizations for heart failure, and appropriate ICD therapies after AVJ ablation and BiV pacing as compared with patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy

  • Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy likely plays a significant role in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation

  • The extent of pre-existing myocardial scar directly correlates with lack of response to BiV pacing in patients with CHF and refractory atrial fibrillation


Both heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly prevalent public health problems resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. The two conditions share several risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease (CAD), and advanced age, all of which are increasing in incidence.

Atrial fibrillation is known to worsen the clinical course of HF through multiple mechanisms including rapid ventricular response (RVR), irregularity of ventricular rhythm, loss of organized atrial contribution to cardiac output, and in some cases, tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC). Despite recent advances in radiofrequency ablation and anti-arrhythmic drug therapy, curative therapy for long-standing, persistent AF remains challenging in some patients, and AF is deemed ‘permanent’ which is treated with rate control and anticoagulation. In a significant number of patients, adequate ventricular rate control with atrio-ventricular (AV) nodal blocking drugs is not possible, and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) combined with institution of permanent pacing is indicated.1,2 In the presence of HF, biventricular (BiV) pacing is usually chosen to prevent right ventricular pacing-induced cardiac dysynchrony, and is often combined with an ICD.3,4

A superior effect on outcomes has been noted in those with a de novo indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with non-ischaemic (DCM) compared with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). This has not been previously studied following combined AVJA with BiV ICD implantation (AVJA/BiV) in patients who did not necessarily have a pre-existing de novo indication for CRT. Such patients are fundamentally different from prior studies since (1) they have permanent AF with poor rate control and have undergone AVJA; and (2) BiV pacing is often performed solely for the prevention, as opposed to the correction, of cardiac dysynchrony. The primary purpose of our study was to compare the echocardiographic and clinical response between patients with DCM and ICM, largely without a de novo indication for CRT, who had undergone AVJA/BiV for drug-refractory AF/RVR and systolic HF.



This study complies with the ethical principles of the revised Declaration of Helsinki (Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, 1996). The Institutional Review Board at the Veterans Health Administration North Texas Healthcare System approved the study protocol.

Study population

This was a single-centre, retrospective analysis of 45 patients who had undergone concurrent AVJA/BiV (defined as AVJA within 1 month of BiV implant/upgrade) for (1) symptomatic HF requiring multiple hospital admissions, and an ejection fraction (EF) <35%; and (2) permanent AF with documented poor pharmacologic ventricular rate control. The indication for BiV pacing in the majority of patients was to prevent RV pacing-induced cardiac dysynchrony after AVJA, although 4 of 45 patients had ≥ class IIa indication for CRT by QRS duration and morphology criteria. Patients undergoing BiV upgrade for the correction of cardiac dysynchrony due to RV pacing were excluded. All left ventricular (LV) leads were placed in a lateral or postero-lateral location. All patients received a CRT device with ICD capability (CRT-D).

Patients with prior ICDs undergoing AVJA/BiV upgrade were included. Thirteen patients (seven in the DCM group and six in the ICM group) had an ICD prior to AVJA/BiV upgrade. Ten of these 13 patients had their prior ICD implanted for primary prevention.

Patients were also excluded if (1) pre-and post-procedure transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE) were not available, and (2) accurate determination of aetiology of HF (ischaemic vs. non-ischaemic) could not be made.

Clinical classification

Patients were classified as having ICM if there was one or more of (a) a history of coronary artery bypass (CABG); (b) angiographic evidence of significant flow-limiting CAD in at least two major epicardial vessels; (c) definitive evidence of prior Q-wave myocardial infarction by both clinical and electrocardiographic (EKG) criteria.

Hospitalizations for worsening heart failure

Patient's electronic medical records were analysed from the date of the procedure to the last follow-up or date of death. Hospitalization for heart failure (HFH) was defined as any hospital admission for management of decompensated HF as a primary admission diagnosis.


Pre-procedure and post-procedure TTEs (minimum post-procedure interval of 6 months) were analysed. Patients underwent TTE in the left lateral decubitus position with a commercially available system.

Left ventricular dimensions and ejection fraction

Left ventricular dimensions were obtained from the M-mode parasternal long-axis view. Left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) was defined as peak downward motion of the interventricular septum, and LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) as the point immediately prior to downward displacement of the septum. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was calculated in pre-procedure echocardiograms by two different methods: Simpson's method5 using the 4 chamber apical view in 29/45 patients, and the Teichholz method6 using M mode measurements of the LV in 16/45 patients. Post-procedure LVEF was calculated using Simpson's method in all patients. Pre-procedure TTEs were performed during AF, with measurements averaged over 3 cardiac cycles. All images post-procedure were made during ventricular pacing at 80 beats-per-minute (bpm). Images were analysed offline by an investigator blind to the clinical classification of the patients.

Echocardiographic scar analysis

We looked for the presence, extent, and location of scar using TTE. Scarred segments were defined as those displaying both: (1) a reduction in end-diastolic wall thickness (EDWT) of ≤0.5 cm; and (2) an abnormal increase in acoustic reflectance noted by the loss of contractile, granular reflection of healthy myocardium, which is substituted by akinetic, highly echo reflective linear tissue, characteristic of scar.7–9 In addition, scar tissue demonstrates a lack of distinction between epicardial, myocardial, and endocardial layers. Each image set was analysed using a 17-segment analysis where segments were individually labelled as having scar or not. We compared the DCM and ICM groups with respect to: (i) number of patients with any scar; (ii) mean number of scarred segments; and (iii) presence or absence of scar in either lateral or postero-lateral LV segments.

Appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies

Post-procedure appropriate ICD therapies were analysed from ICD interrogations by an investigator blinded to the clinical classification of the patient. Appropriate ICD therapies were defined as either anti-tachycardia pacing, or shock for ventricular arrhythmia. Since patients had all undergone successful AVJA, discrimination between appropriate and inappropriate therapies for supraventricular arrhythmias was not necessary. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies for lead noise or electromagnetic interference were excluded.

Statistical analysis

The primary endpoint for the study was a comparison of the change in LVEF (ΔEF) from pre-to post-procedure between patients with DCM and those with ICM. Secondary echocardiographic endpoints included the change (Δ) in LV dimensions, and comparison of scar burden between groups. Comparisons of baseline and follow-up echocardiographic data and the change (Δ) in parameters between DCM and ICM groups were analysed using a non-parametric test (Kruskal–Wallis rank sum). Scar burden comparisons between groups were performed using a t-test, a P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Continuous patient demographic data were presented as mean ± standard deviation and were analysed using the two-tailed t-test. Comparison of both post-procedural HFH, and appropriate ICD therapies between DCM and ICM groups was performed using a non-parametric (Mann–Whitney U) test. Comparisons of time-to-first HFH, as well as appropriate ICD therapy were analysed using a Cox proportional model and are displayed on Kaplan–Meier curves. The first 2 years following the procedure were used in the calculation of time-to-first HFH and appropriate ICD therapy.


Baseline clinical characteristics of the study groups are displayed in Table 1. Mean number of AV nodal blocking agents prior to AVJA/BiV was 2.07 ± 0.55 in the DCM group, and 2.00 ± 0.49 in the ICM group (P = NS).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients

Patient characteristics DCM (n = 27) ICM (n = 18) P value 
N (male) 27 (26) 18 (18) 0.21 
Age (years) 65 ± 9 68 ± 9 0.11 
Baseline echocardiographic data 
 Ejection fraction 32.9 ± 9.0 27.9 ± 10.0 0.09 
 LVEDD 5.7 ± 0.8 6.2 ± 1.1 0.08 
 LVESD 5.1 ± 0.9 5.5 ± 1.3 0.2 
 Baseline heart rate 88 ± 27 72 ± 18 0.22 
 Baseline QRS 111 ± 29 128 ± 31 0.08 
 Hypertension 23 (85) 14 (78) 0.27 
 Diabetes 11 (40) 7 (39) 0.45 
 COPD 3 (11) 4 (22) 0.16 
 Smoking 20 (74) 16 (89) 0.12 
 Hyperlipidemia 21 (78) 15 (83) 0.33 
 Beta blocker 25 (93) 17 (94) 0.41 
 ACE/ARB 24 (89) 15 (83) 0.61 
 Anticoagulation 23 (85) 14 (78) 0.27 
 Diuretics 21 (77) 16 (89) 0.24 
 Spironolactone 4 (15) 4 (22) 0.27 
 Digoxin 17 (63) 10 (56) 0.31 
 Antiplatelet 9 (33) 11 (61) 0.03 
 Calcium channel blockers 3 (11) 3 (17) 0.30 
Patient characteristics DCM (n = 27) ICM (n = 18) P value 
N (male) 27 (26) 18 (18) 0.21 
Age (years) 65 ± 9 68 ± 9 0.11 
Baseline echocardiographic data 
 Ejection fraction 32.9 ± 9.0 27.9 ± 10.0 0.09 
 LVEDD 5.7 ± 0.8 6.2 ± 1.1 0.08 
 LVESD 5.1 ± 0.9 5.5 ± 1.3 0.2 
 Baseline heart rate 88 ± 27 72 ± 18 0.22 
 Baseline QRS 111 ± 29 128 ± 31 0.08 
 Hypertension 23 (85) 14 (78) 0.27 
 Diabetes 11 (40) 7 (39) 0.45 
 COPD 3 (11) 4 (22) 0.16 
 Smoking 20 (74) 16 (89) 0.12 
 Hyperlipidemia 21 (78) 15 (83) 0.33 
 Beta blocker 25 (93) 17 (94) 0.41 
 ACE/ARB 24 (89) 15 (83) 0.61 
 Anticoagulation 23 (85) 14 (78) 0.27 
 Diuretics 21 (77) 16 (89) 0.24 
 Spironolactone 4 (15) 4 (22) 0.27 
 Digoxin 17 (63) 10 (56) 0.31 
 Antiplatelet 9 (33) 11 (61) 0.03 
 Calcium channel blockers 3 (11) 3 (17) 0.30 

View Large

Patient classification

Of 45 patients, 18 were classified as ICM and 27 were classified as DCM. Of 18 ICM patients, 9 were classified by a history of prior CABG, 8 by angiographic, and 1 by EKG/clinical criteria. Of 27 DCM patients, 23 were classified by angiographic, and 4 by EKG/clinical criteria.

Baseline QRS and heart rates

The baseline heart rate (HR) was averaged for each patient from pre-procedure resting EKG, and pre-procedure physical examination. A correlation analysis was performed between HR obtained from the EKG and that from the physical examination, and this showed a strong correlation (R = 0.75; P < 0.01). The baseline HR for the DCM and ICM group was 88 ± 27 and 72 ± 18 bpm, respectively (P = 0.22). Baseline QRS duration for the DCM group was 111 ± 29 ms and for the ICM group was 128 ± 31 ms (P = 0.08).

Six of 27 patients in the DCM group had a QRS duration >120 ms; however, only 2 of 27 had a ≥ class IIa indication for CRT (by QRS duration and morphology criteria).10 Four of 18 patients in the ICM group had a QRS duration >120 ms; however, only 2 of 18 had a ≥ class IIa indication for CRT by QRS duration and morphology criteria.10

Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular dimensions

Mean interval from pre-procedure to post-procedure echocardiogram was 20.2 ± 14.45 months. Baseline EF was 27.9% ± 10.0 in the ICM group compared with 32.5% ± 9.3 in the DCM group (P = 0.09). ΔEF was non-significant in the ICM group (0.5% ± 9.9; P = NS) compared with a significant improvement (11.2% ± 11.9; P < 0.01) in the DCM group, representing a significant difference in ΔEF between groups (P < 0.01) (Figure 1). Using a post-procedure LVEF of ≥50% to define advanced resolution of cardiomyopathy, 8 out of 27 DCM patients, and none of the ICM patients had advanced resolution of cardiomyopathy.

Figure 1

Box and whisker chart showing the comparison of ΔEF between DCM and ICM groups. DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

Figure 1

Box and whisker chart showing the comparison of ΔEF between DCM and ICM groups. DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

Baseline LVESD in the ICM group was 5.5 ± 1.3 cm compared with 5.0 ± 0.9 in the DCM group (P = 0.25). ΔLVESD was not significant in the ICM group (0.0 ± 0.7; P = NS), but was significantly decreased in the DCM group (−0.7 ± 0.08 cm; P < 0.05), representing a significant difference in ΔLVESD between groups (P = 0.02). Baseline LVEDD in the ICM group was 6.2 ± 1.1 cm compared with 5.6 ± 0.8 cm in the DCM group (P = 0.6). ΔLVEDD was not significant (0.3 ± 0.6 cm; P = NS) in the ICM group or in the DCM group (0.1 ± 0.7 cm, P = NS). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in ΔLVEDD between the groups (P = NS).

Scar analysis

Three of 27 patients (11%) in the DCM group had scar in any segment compared with 16 of 18 (89%) ischaemic patients. Mean number of scarred segments in the DCM group was 0.30 ± 0.89 compared with 5.22 ± 3.1 in the ICM group (P < 0.001). Only 1 of 27 patients (3.7%) in the DCM group had scar in one or more lateral or postero-lateral segments compared with 12 of 18 (66%) of the ICM patients.

Hospitalizations for heart failure

Median survival post-procedure was 612 days. In the DCM group, 4 of 25 patients required HFH while 15 of 18 in the ICM group required HFH during the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.0001). Post-procedure HFH occurred at a rate of 0.26 ± 0.7 per patient in the DCM group compared with 2.39 ± 2.1 per patient in the ICM group (P < 0.001). The hazard ratio for HFH in ICM compared with DCM was 10.77 (P < 0.001). Time-to-first HFH was significantly longer in the DCM group compared with the ICM group (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier curves depicting heart failure hospitalizations occurring post-procedure in DCM and ICM groups. DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy; HFH, heart failure hospitalizations.

Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier curves depicting heart failure hospitalizations occurring post-procedure in DCM and ICM groups. DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy; HFH, heart failure hospitalizations.

Appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies

Eight of 27 of the DCM patients received at least one appropriate ICD therapy, compared with 11 of 17 of the ICM patients (P = 0.01). There were an average of 2.3 ± 6.1 therapies in the DCM group compared with 9.4 ± 12.3 therapies in the ICM group (P = 0.01). The hazard ratio for receiving an appropriate ICD therapy in ICM compared with DCM was 3.67 (P


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *