Abstract:
Background
Objective
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Key words
1. Introduction
- Dinshaw L.
- Münkler P.
- Schäffer B.
- et al.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Data Sources and Search Strategy
2.2 Study Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment
2.3 Outcomes of Interest
2.4 Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1 Systematic review and study population
- Dinshaw L.
- Münkler P.
- Schäffer B.
- et al.

First author, year | Study design | Country of origin | Number of HCM patient (n) | Mean follow-up duration | Catheter Ablation Technique | Method of AF Detection |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kilicaslan, 2006 | Retrospective | US, Brazil, Italy | 27 | 341 + 237 days | RF | Rhythm transmitter, Holter monitor |
Gaita, 2007 | Prospective | Italy | 26 | 19 + 10 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Di Donna, 2010 | Retrospective | Italy, France | 61 | 29 + 16 months | RF | 12-lead EKG,24-h Holter monitor |
McCready, 2011 | Prospective | UK | 191 | 13 + 9 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 1–7-day Holter monitor, cardiac device interrogation (if available) |
Derejko, 2013 | Prospective | Poland | 30 | 1.9 + 1.2 years | RF | 12-lead EKG, 48-h Holter monitor |
Santangeli, 2013 | Prospective | US, Italy | 43 | 42 [38-48] months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 7-day Holter monitor |
Hayashi, 2014 | Retrospective | Japan | 17 | 26 + 14 months | RF | Cardiac event recorder, 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Bassiouny, 2015 | Retrospective | US | 79 | 28 [9-51] months | RF | Holter monitor, cardiac device interrogation (if available) |
Contreras Valdes, 2015 | Retrospective | US | 40 | 54 [22-67] months | RF | N/A |
Mussigbrodt, 2014 | Prospective | Germany, Greece | 22 | 12 + 11 months | RF | 7-day Holter monitor, cardiac device interrogation (if available) |
Okamatsu, 2015 | Prospective | Japan | 22 | 21 + 12 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, Holter monitor |
Wen, 2015 | Prospective | China | 39 | 14.8 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Roh, 2016 | Prospective | Korea | 31 | 44.7 + 30.8 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Yan, 2017 | Retrospective | China | 25 | 3.39 + 1.17 years | RF | N/A |
Chen, 2018 | Prospective | China | 97 | 44.3 + 29.6 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Castagno, 2020 | Prospective | Italy, France | 116 | 6 [3-8.9] years | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor, cardiac device interrogation (if available) |
Zheng, 2020 | Retrospective | China | 120 | 61.9 + 31.6 months | RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor |
Creta, 2021 | Prospective | UK, Italy, France | 137 | 43.8 + 37 months | Cryo or RF | 12-lead EKG, 24-h Holter monitor, cardiac device interrogation (if available) |
Dinshaw, 2021 | Prospective | Germany | 65 | 48.1 + 32.5 months | Cryo or RF | 24-h Holter monitor |
First author, year | Age (years) [Mean+/-SD] | Female n(%) | Non-paroxysmal AF n(%) | AF duration (years) [Mean+/-SD] | LA volume (ml) | LA diameter (mm) [Mean+/-SD] | Mitral regurgitation n(%) | LVOT obstruction n(%) | Previous myomectoy or septal ablation n(%) | Interventricular Septum (mm) [Mean+/-SD] | LVEF (%) [Mean+/-SD] | No. of failed AAD’s [Mean+/-SD] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kilicaslan, 2006 | 55 +/- 10 | 8 (30%) | 13 (48%) | 5.4 +/- 3.6 | NR | 50 +/- 9 | 20 (74%) | 12 (44%) | NR | 17 +/- 5 | 55 +/- 8 | 3.0 +/- 1.2 |
Gaita, 2007 | 58 +/- 11 | 8 (31%) | 13 (50%) | 7.3 +/- 6.2 | 170 +/- 48 | 52 +/- 6 | 21 (81%) | 6 (23%) | 5 (19%) | NR | 57 +/- 4 | 2.3 +/- 1.4 |
Di Donna, 2010 | 54 +/- 13 | 17 (28%) | 26 (43%) | 5.7 +/- 5.5 | 140 [125-180] | 51 +/- 6.7 | 50 (86%) | 12 (20%) | 6 (10%) | NR | 59 +/- 8 | NR |
McCready, 2011 | 58.2 +/- 12.9 | 40 (21%) | 168 (88%) | 4.0 +/- 3.7 | NR | 47 +/- 7 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 57 +/- 11 | NR |
Derejko, 2013 | 48.7 +/- 11 | 10 (33%) | 16 (53.3%) | 6 +/- 4.2 | 180 +/- 47 | NR | NR | 6/30 (20%) | 2 (7%) | 20.5 +/- 6.3 | NR | 1.8 +/- 1.2 |
Santangeli, 2013 | 59 +/- 8 | 14 (33%) | 31 (72%) | 3 | NR | 50.8 +/- 6.8 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 59 +/- 6 | NR |
Hayashi, 2014 | 63 +/- 12 | 5 (29%) | 9 (53%) | 3.5 +/- 3.5 | NR | 46 +/- 7 | 3 (18%) | NR | 7 (41%) | 19 +/- 4 | 71 +/- 10 | 1.7 +/- 1.2 |
Bassiouny, 2015 | 55.3 +/- 12.2 | 22 (28%) | 45 (57%) | 3 [1.4- 7.8] | NR | 50.1 +/- 9.1 | 46 (58%) | 22 (28%) | NR | 19.0 +/- 4.7 | 56.1 +/- 7.9 | NR |
Contreras Valdes, 2015 | 54.3 +/- 7.3 | 12 (30%) | 27 (67.5%) | NR | NR | NR | NR | 15 (37.5%) | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Mussigbrodt, 2014 | 57 +/- 8 | 7 (32%) | 12 (55%) | NR | NR | 46 +/- 8 | 3 (14%) | NR | NR | 19 +/- 4 | 60 +/- 7 | NR |
Okamatsu, 2015 | 65 +/- 11 | 12 (54.5%) | 17 (77%) | 6.6 +/- 4.4 | 98 +/- 38 | 48 +/- 6 | 5 (22.7%) | 3 (13.6%) | NR | NR | 57 +/- 14 | NR |
Wen, 2015 | 54.0 +/- 10.1 | 10 (25.6%) | 12 (31%) | 5.8 +/- 5.6 | NR | 45.8 +/- 6.7 | 10 (25.6%) | NR | 0 (0%) | NR | 64.9 +/- 8.6 | NR |
Roh, 2016 | 57.5 +/- 11.5 | 5 (16.1%) | 18 (58%) | 5.1 | NR | 47 +/- 10 | 2 (6.5%) | NR | NR | 15.5 | 60.5 | NR |
Yan, 2017 | 53.4 +/- 8 | 6 (24%) | 9 (36%) | NR | NR | 47.4 +/- 7.51 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Chen, 2018 | 57.6 | 28 (28.8%) | 41 (42.2%) | 2.5 | NR | 44.6 | NR | NR | NR | 14.2 | 65.2 | NR |
Castagno, 2020 | 53.6 +/- 11.4 | 34 (29%) | 73 (63%) | 5.0 +/- 5.6 | 168 +/- 41 | NR | 100 (86%) | 25 (22%) | 22 (19%) | 21 +/- 5 | 57 +/- 6 | NR |
Zheng, 2020 | 61 +/- 9.8 | 43 (35.8%) | 60 (50%) | NR | NR | 47 +/- 6 | NR | 22 (18.3%) | NR | 18 +/- 5.1 | 62 +/- 4.7 | NR |
Creta, 2021 | 55 +/- 13.4 | 39 (29.1%) | 57 (41.5%) | 3.3 +/- 3.1 | NR | 47 +/- 7 | 14 (12.2%) | NR | 20 (14.9%) | NR | 58 +/- 0 | NR |
Dinshaw, 2021 | 64.5 +/- 9.9 | 23 (35%) | 52 (80%) | NR | 54.1 +/- 12.5 | 54.1 +/- 12.5 | 55 (84.5%) | NR | 8 (12.3%) | 18.6 +/- 4.2 | 54.4 +/- 14.6 | NR |
3.2 Freedom from AF recurrence after single ablation

3.3 Prevalence of redo ablation

3.4 Freedom from AF recurrence after redo ablation

3.5 Utilization of antiarrhythmic drug therapy after successful ablation

3.6 Change in NYHA functional class after ablation

3.7 Quality assessment of included studies
4. Discussion
- Abdelazeem B.
- Abbas K.S.
- Ahmad S.
- Raslan H.
- Labieb F.
- Savarapu P.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Material
6. References:
- Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Treatment Strategy, Characteristics of Consecutive Atrial Tachycardia and Long-Term Outcome.J Am Heart Assoc. 02 02 2021; 10e017451https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.017451
- Atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management.Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2020; 10: 409-418
- Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Circulation. May 10 2016; 133: 1901-1905https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015085
- Clinical Profile and Consequences of Atrial Fibrillation in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Circulation. Dec 19 2017; 136: 2420-2436https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029267
Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 10 2017;14(10):e275-e444. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.012
- Atrial Fibrillation: JACC Council Perspectives.J Am Coll Cardiol. 04 14 2020; 75: 1689-1713https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.025
- Management of Atrial Fibrillation in 2021: An Updated Comparison of the Current CCS/CHRS, ESC, and AHA/ACC/HRS Guidelines.Can J Cardiol. 10. 2021; 37: 1607-1618https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2021.06.011
- Outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Europace. Apr. 2016; 18: 508-520https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv339
- Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients: a systematic review.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. Nov. 2015; 44: 161-170https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-015-0047-8
- Usefulness and safety of transcatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Am J Cardiol. Jun 01 2007; 99: 1575-1581https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.087
- Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart. 10 01 2016; 102: 1533-1543https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309406
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.J Clin Epidemiol. Oct. 2009; 62: 1006-1012https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
- Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies.J Clin Epidemiol. Dec. 2009; 62 (e4): 1253-1260https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.010
- Efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.Heart Rhythm. Mar. 2006; 3: 275-280https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.11.013
- Efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: impact of age, atrial remodelling, and disease progression.Europace. Mar. 2010; 12: 347-355https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq013
- Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: long-term outcomes and mechanisms of arrhythmia recurrence.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Dec 2013; 6: 1089-1094https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.000339
- Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: atrial fibrillation type determines the success rate.Kardiol Pol. 2013; 71: 17-24
- Left atrial wall thickness and outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. Aug. 2014; 40: 153-160https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-014-9894-y
- [Predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with atrial fibrillation].Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. Jul. 2015; 43: 589-594
- Atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: long-term outcomes and clinical predictors.J Am Coll Cardiol. Apr 14. 2015; 65: 1485-1487https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.063
- Impact of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on outcome of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Circ J. 2015; 79: 419-424https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0823
- Outcomes of nonpharmacologic treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Heart Rhythm. Jul 2015; 12: 1438-1447https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.03.042
- Results of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in hypertrophied hearts - Comparison between primary and secondary hypertrophy.J Cardiol. Jun. 2015; 65: 474-478https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2014.07.005
- Long-Term Outcome of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 07. 2016; 27: 788-795https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12985
- Long-term outcome of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 07 2018; 29: 951-957https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13645
- Five-year outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 03. 2020; 31: 621-628https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14349
- Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a European observational multicentre study.Europace. 09 08 2021; 23: 1409-1417https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab022
Q. Yan JZD, D.Y. Long, R.H. Yu, R.B. Tang, X. Du, R. Bai, C.S. Ma, Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, European Heart Journal , Volume 34, Issue suppl_1, 1 August 2013, P548, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht307.P548.
- Transcatheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Long-term results and clinical outcomes.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 03. 2021; 32: 657-666https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14880
- Predictors of recurrence following radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.Europace. Mar. 2011; 13: 355-361https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq434
- High Incidence of De Novo and Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Cardiac Rhythm Management Device.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 07. 2016; 27: 779-784https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12982
- The Effect of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.RCM. 2022-04-24 2022; 23https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2304141
- Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.J Am Coll Cardiol. 02 01 2022; 79: 390-414https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.021
- A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. Dec 05 2002; 347: 1825-1833https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021328
Camm AJ, Naccarelli GV, Mittal S, et al. The Increasing Role of Rhythm Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 05 17 2022;79(19):1932-1948. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.337
- Early Rhythm-Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 10 01 2020; 383: 1305-1316https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2019422
- Systematic, early rhythm control strategy for atrial fibrillation in patients with or without symptoms: the EAST-AFNET 4 trial.Eur Heart J. 03 21 2022; 43: 1219-1230https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab593
- Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Have a High Burden of Left Atrial Fibrosis by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 03. 2019; 5: 364-375https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2018.10.016
- Cryoballoon Ablation as Initial Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 01 28 2021; 384: 316-324https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2029554
- Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.Circulation. 04 06 2021; 143: 1377-1390https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050991
- Progression of atrial fibrillation after a failed initial ablation procedure in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized comparison of drug therapy versus reablation.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. Aug. 2013; 6: 754-760https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.113.000495
Article info
Publication history
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
Conflict of Interest Statement:
Dr. MHK is a Consultant at Sanofi Aventis. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Key Findings:
1. Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is safe but less effective in patients with HCM as compared to patients with non-HCM substrate.
2. Many patients with HCM required redo ablation and anti-arrhythmic drugs to maintain normal sinus rhythm.
3. Successful AF ablation in patients with HCM resulted in significant improvement in NYHA functional class in our study.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy