All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/Guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary data that includes background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis of the guidelines.Click here to access the corresponding ESC CardioMed chapters.

Background: Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial. Methods: Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility. Results: Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%–11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%–10.3%; P =0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients. Conclusions: The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00652522.

NCT01277783.

Background: Catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) reduces the recurrence of VT in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The appropriate timing of VT ablation and its effects on mortality and heart failure progression remain a matter of debate. In patients with life-threatening arrhythmias necessitating ICD implantation, we compared outcomes of preventive VT ablation (undertaken before ICD implantation to prevent ICD shocks for VT) and deferred ablation after 3 ICD shocks for VT. Methods: The BERLIN VT study (Preventive Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Myocardial Infarction) was a prospective, open, parallel, randomized trial performed at 26 centers. Patients with stable ischemic cardiomyopathy, a left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 50%, and documented VT were randomly assigned 1:1 to a preventive or deferred ablation strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and unplanned hospitalization for either symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia or worsening heart failure. Secondary outcomes included sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia and appropriate ICD therapy. We hypothesized that preventive ablation strategy would be superior to deferred ablation strategy in the intention-to-treat population. Results: During a mean follow-up of 396±284 days, the primary end point occurred in 25 (32.9%) of 76 patients in the preventive ablation group and 23 (27.7%) of 83 patients in the deferred ablation group (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.62–1.92]; P =0.77). On the basis of prespecified criteria for interim analyses, the study was terminated early for futility. In the preventive versus deferred ablation group, 6 versus 2 patients died (7.9% versus 2.4%; P =0.18), 8 versus 2 patients were admitted for worsening heart failure (10.4% versus 2.3%; P =0.062), and 15 versus 21 patients were hospitalized for symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia (19.5% versus 25.3%; P =0.27). Among secondary outcomes, the proportions of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (39.7% versus 48.2%; P =0.050) and appropriate ICD therapy (34.2% versus 47.0%; P =0.020) were numerically reduced in the preventive ablation group. Conclusions: Preventive VT ablation before ICD implantation did not reduce mortality or hospitalization for arrhythmia or worsening heart failure during 1 year of follow-up compared with the deferred ablation strategy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02501005.

Aims Our aim was to develop a machine learning (ML)-based risk stratification system to predict 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year all-cause mortality from pre-implant parameters of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and results Multiple ML models were trained on a retrospective database of 1510 patients undergoing CRT implantation to predict 1- to 5-year all-cause mortality. Thirty-three pre-implant clinical features were selected to train the models. The best performing model [SEMMELWEIS-CRT score (perSonalizEd assessMent of estiMatEd risk of mortaLity With machinE learnIng in patientS undergoing CRT implantation)], along with pre-existing scores (Seattle Heart Failure Model, VALID-CRT, EAARN, ScREEN, and CRT-score), was tested on an independent cohort of 158 patients. There were 805 (53%) deaths in the training cohort and 80 (51%) deaths in the test cohort during the 5-year follow-up period. Among the trained classifiers, random forest demonstrated the best performance. For the prediction of 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year mortality, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the SEMMELWEIS-CRT score were 0.768 (95% CI: 0.674–0.861; P < 0.001), 0.793 (95% CI: 0.718–0.867; P < 0.001), 0.785 (95% CI: 0.711–0.859; P < 0.001), 0.776 (95% CI: 0.703–0.849; P < 0.001), and 0.803 (95% CI: 0.733–0.872; P < 0.001), respectively. The discriminative ability of our model was superior to other evaluated scores. Conclusion The SEMMELWEIS-CRT score (available at semmelweiscrtscore.com) exhibited good discriminative capabilities for the prediction of all-cause death in CRT patients and outperformed the already existing risk scores. By capturing the non-linear association of predictors, the utilization of ML approaches may facilitate optimal candidate selection and prognostication of patients undergoing CRT implantation.