CASTLE-AF
Catheter Ablation versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation
Clinical Question
Population
Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation, NYHA class II-IV heart failure, LVEF ≤35%, and an implanted ICD or CRT-D device.
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (pulmonary vein isolation with additional lesions as needed)
Conventional medical therapy (rate or rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs)
Primary Endpoint
Composite of all-cause mortality or worsening heart failure hospitalization
Key Findings
The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.5% of ablation patients vs 44.6% of medical therapy patients (HR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87; p=0.007).
All-cause mortality was 13.4% with ablation vs 25.0% with medical therapy (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; p=0.01).
Heart failure hospitalization was 20.7% with ablation vs 35.9% with medical therapy (HR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; p=0.004).
LVEF improved significantly more in the ablation group (+8.0% vs +0.2%; p=0.005).
Sinus rhythm maintenance at 60 months was 63.1% in the ablation group vs 21.7% in the medical therapy group.
Impact on Clinical Practice
Guideline Impact
Limitations
Relatively small sample size (363 patients) raises concerns about generalizability and the possibility of overestimating treatment effects.
Open-label design introduces potential bias in event detection and management decisions.
All patients had ICDs/CRT-Ds, which may limit applicability to the broader heart failure population without devices.
How Does This Trial Apply to Your Case?
Clinical trials inform guidelines, but every patient is unique. Our Heart Team evaluates how landmark evidence applies to your specific anatomy, risk profile, and preferences.
Send us a messageRelated Trials
Apply this evidence to your actual case.
Get an independent review from a cardiac surgeon and cardiologist in 24 hours after records are received. No referral needed — pricing is shared on your complimentary discovery call.
Or read how we review cases like this one.
