Background: The CASTLE-HTx trial demonstrated the benefit of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation compared with medical therapy in decreasing mortality, need for left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (HTx) in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF).
Objective: This analysis aimed to identify risk factors related to adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage HF and to assess the impact of ablation.
Methods: The CASTLE-HTx protocol randomized 194 patients with end-stage HF and AF to ablation vs medical therapy. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association class ≥III, and AF burden >50% as predictors for the primary end point. The CASTLE-HTx risk score assigned weights to these risk factors. Patients with a risk score ≥3 were identified as high risk.
Results: The patients were assigned to low-risk (89 [45.9%]) and high-risk (105 [54.1%]) groups. After a median follow-up of 18 months, a primary end point event occurred in 6 and 31 patients of the low- and high-risk groups (hazard ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-11.9). The incidence rate (IR) difference between ablation and medical therapy was much larger in high-risk patients (8/49 [IR, 11.4] vs 23/56 [IR, 36.1]) compared with low-risk patients (2/48 [IR, 2.6] vs 4/41 [IR, 6.3]). The IR difference for ablation was significantly higher in high-risk patients (24.69) compared with low-risk patients (3.70).
Conclusion: The absolute benefit of ablation is more pronounced in high-risk patients, but low-risk patients may also benefit. The CASTLE-HTx risk score identifies patients with end-stage HF who will particularly benefit from ablation.
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Heart failure; Heart transplantation; Left ventricular assist device.
Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.