Response by Di Biase et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and an Implanted Device: Results From the AATAC Multicenter Randomized Trial”
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
We read with interest the letters by Kosiuk et al, Skolnik, Turco, Liu and Yang, and Willey and Biviano.
We thank these authors for their interest in our study.
We agree with Kosiuk et al that the restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is key to improving ejection fraction and 6-minute walk distance, and we agree with the authors’ data showing a reduction of inappropriate shocks attributable to atrial arrhythmias in patients undergoing ablation.1 Unfortunately, in our trial,2 we did not prospectively collect implantable cardioverter defibrillator inappropriate shocks, and we will not be able to provide solid data.
We respectfully disagree with the idea of Dr Skolnik. As mentioned in the discussion and in the clinical perspective of the article, we are not proposing AF ablation in all patients with heart failure, but we are suggesting that this underused therapeutic approach is considered more and more in patients with heart failure.2 The PABA CHF (Comparison of Pulmonary Vein Isolation Versus AV Nodal Ablation With Biventricular Pacing for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Congestive Heart Failure) trial,3 although small, showed little improvement with the atrioventricular node ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation in comparison with ablation. In …