Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 14, 2026

Non-fluoroscopic Catheter Tracking for Fluoroscopy Reduction in Interventional Electrophysiology
Published on: May 26, 2015
Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure
Zhou Le1, Jue Wang1, Yize Zhao1
1Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Beijing, China.
Insights
Catheter ablation (CA) significantly reduced mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) compared to drug therapy. This real-world study highlights CA as a potentially superior treatment option for this complex patient group.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly complicates heart failure (HF), increasing patient morbidity and mortality.
- While catheter ablation (CA) benefits selected AF patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), its efficacy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains less clear.
- Real-world data are crucial to understand CA's benefits across the spectrum of HF populations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the impact of catheter ablation (CA) versus pharmacological treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF).
Main Methods:
- Prospective enrollment of AF and HF patients in the China-AF Registry (August 2011-December 2020).
- Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create comparable cohorts for CA and pharmacological treatment.
- Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included thromboembolism and cardiovascular death.
Main Results:
- After PSM, 604 patients were in the CA group and 604 in the pharmacological group.
- The CA group exhibited significantly lower all-cause mortality (4.8% vs. 14.1%; adjusted HR 0.54) over a mean 4.16-year follow-up.
- Catheter ablation was also linked to reduced risks of cardiovascular death (adjusted HR 0.35) and thromboembolism (adjusted HR 0.48).
Conclusions:
- In a real-world cohort of AF and HF patients, catheter ablation demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared to pharmacological therapy.
- These findings suggest CA may be a beneficial treatment strategy for AF patients with HF.
- Further confirmation from prospective randomized studies is warranted due to potential residual confounding.
Background:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently complicated by heart failure (HF), leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation (CA) has been shown in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve outcomes in selected patients with AF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the efficacy of CA compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been conclusively established. Consequently, real-world evidence is needed to further clarify the potential benefits of CA across the broader spectrum of HF populations.
Objectives:
Our research will investigate the impact of CA on the clinical prognosis of patients with AF and HF, compared to a pharmacological treatment approach.
Methods:
Patients with AF and HF were prospectively enrolled from August 2011 to December 2020 in the China-AF Registry. The efficacy of CA versus pharmacological treatment was evaluated in propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, with secondary endpoints including thromboembolism and cardiovascular death.
Results:
From a cohort of 3072 AF and HF patients, 2529 were analyzed (678 underwent CA and 1851 received pharmacological treatment). Propensity score matching resulted in 604 patients per group, well-balanced (mean age 62.6 ± 10.5 years, 38.3% female), with 53.3% having persistent AF. Ablation patients underwent an average of 1.16 ± 0.41 procedures. Over a mean 4.16-year follow-up, CA group saw significantly fewer deaths (4.8% vs. 14.1%; adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.91; p < 0.001) compared to the pharmacological group after adjusting potential confounders. CA was also associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular death (adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.74; p = 0.005) and thromboembolism (adjusted HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.88; p = 0.020), after adjusting medication use.
Conclusions:
In patients with AF and HF, CA was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to pharmacological treatment in this real-world cohort. Nevertheless, residual confounding cannot be excluded, and the findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation from prospective randomized studies.
Trial Registration:
www.chictr.org.cn. Identifier: ChiCTR-OCH-13003729.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use

