LAUSR

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure, and some have advocated intensive rate and/or rhythm control strategies for these patients. However, the loss of atrial systole and irregularity of the ventricular response has not been shown to contribute to the progression of heart failure, and the presence or rate of long-standing AF in patients with chronic heart failure does not have prognostic significance. In randomized clinical trials, pharmacological rhythm control has not been shown to be superior to rate-control in influencing long-term outcomes, but the use of membrane-active antiarrhythmic drugs can increase the risk of both pump failure and arrhythmic deaths in patients with heart failure. Additionally, intensive efforts to slow the ventricular rate in AF can potentially cause clinically inapparent bradyarrhythmias, which can trigger rate-dependent lethal rhythm disturbances or hemodynamic abnormalities. In patients with AF, a more stringent approach to rate control (target rate <80/min) is not superior to a more lenient strategy (target rate <110/min) on the risk of major events. Little is known about the effects of catheter ablation of long-standing AF in established heart failure, particularly in patients with a preserved or a meaningfully reduced ejection fraction, but ablation can add to the fibrotic burden of the left atrium and impair its capacitance functions. For all of these reasons, the management of heart failure and long-standing AF should be primarily directed to slowing of the progression of their underlying cardiomyopathic process rather than the treatment of the arrhythmia. In addition, patients should receive long-term oral anticoagulation with non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. The utility of intensive rate and rhythm control interventions for long-standing AF in patients with established heart failure requires further study.