Key Challenges in Atrial Fibrillation: Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Treatment

© 2025 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.

Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of EP Lab Digest or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates.

EP LAB DIGEST. 2025;25(4):29-30.

Dorys Chavez, MD; Malik Ghawanmeh, MD; Cynthia Tracy, MD 
Department of Cardiology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, affecting millions globally. However, its management remains challenging due to its multifactorial nature and the variety of patient presentations. This brief review explores the key challenges in diagnosis, risk stratification, pharmacology, procedural interventions, and management of AF in the long term.

Early and Accurate Diagnosis

Despite advances in diagnostic technology, diagnosing AF early can be difficult. Many cases go undiagnosed, particularly in asymptomatic individuals or those with paroxysmal AF. Wearable devices have improved detection, but they also raise concerns about overdiagnosis, especially in older individuals. Additionally, AF frequently coexists with other conditions such as heart failure (HF) and diabetes, complicating diagnosis and management.^1,2 AF, diabetes, and HF are often closely connected due to common risk factors. The presence of these conditions can lead to poorer patient outcomes. Treating AF in individuals with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a complex clinical challenge, requiring careful consideration of various factors. No specific pharmacological treatment using either rate or rhythm control strategies has proven superior in terms of reducing HF hospitalizations or improving survival rates. However, recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown that catheter ablation (CA) can significantly improve key outcomes such as survival, HF-related hospitalizations, functional capacity, and quality of life (QOL), while maintaining an acceptable safety profile, in patients with both AF and HFrEF.³ Persistent AF can cause arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) and contribute to the development of HFrEF. A proactive treatment strategy, particularly focusing on rhythm control, is generally recommended.⁴ The coexistence of diabetes mellitus and AF presents a unique risk profile for stroke and systemic arterial embolism (SSE), which has garnered significant attention in recent research. Achieving good glycemic control is advised as a key component of overall risk factor management in individuals with diabetes mellitus and AF, aiming to minimize the frequency, recurrence, and progression of AF.⁵

Risk Stratification and Stroke Prevention

Preventing stroke is a cornerstone of AF management. Anticoagulation therapy remains essential, with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) providing a more predictable alternative to warfarin. However, selecting the appropriate agent remains challenging, especially in elderly patients or those with renal issues. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score helps guide therapy but does not fully account for bleeding risks. Advances in genomics and biomarkers may offer more personalized risk assessments in the future.^6,7

Recently, several devices for left atrial appendage closure have been introduced as alternatives to anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention. The Watchman device (Boston Scientific) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. It is recommended for patients with nonvalvular AF at high risk for stroke and systemic embolism (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥3) who can tolerate short-term warfarin, and when a nonpharmacological option for stroke prevention is considered appropriate.⁸

The recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines have introduced the CHA₂DS₂-VA score, which demonstrates predictive accuracy comparable to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. The decision to adopt the CHA₂DS₂-VA score was made to simplify clinical decision-making, particularly because including gender in the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score can complicate the process. The new guidelines also highlight that the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may not fully account for nonbinary or transgender patients. Furthermore, the shift to the CHA₂DS₂-VA score has influenced the strength of recommendations for OAC therapy. The 2024 guidelines provide a lower level of evidence (LOE C) for prescribing OAC in certain patients, compared to the stronger recommendations (LOE A) in the 2020 guidelines. This shift reflects evolving perspectives on the best approach to managing stroke risk in AF patients.⁹

Rate Versus Rhythm Control Debate

The choice between rate control and rhythm control is a major challenge. Major trials such as AFFIRM have significantly influenced the rhythm versus rate control debate in AF. The RACE and AF-CHF trials found no difference between treatment strategies. As a result, many physicians favored rate control based on AFFIRM’s findings. However, recent studies, including CASTLE-AF and EAST-AFNET 4, have shown that maintaining sinus rhythm offers positive effects for HF patients. The decision to pursue rhythm or rate control should be made collaboratively by the patient and physician, considering the risks and benefits. The findings from the AFFIRM trial are now outdated, as more recent studies have shown antiarrhythmic drugs with better safety profiles, such as flecainide and dofetilide, and that catheter ablation, which is effective, carries procedural risks and variable accessibility.^10,11 These strategies should be considered as they are more effective in maintaining sinus rhythm, reducing AF recurrence, and improving quality of life.¹²

Catheter Ablation and Technological Advances

Catheter ablation is increasingly used for symptomatic, drug-refractory AF. Advances such as pulsed field ablation, cryoballoon ablation, and robotic navigation improve precision and safety, but challenges persist such as recurrence of AF and procedural complications, including stroke and tamponade. The optimal timing for referral to ablation remained controversial, but recent evidence suggests earlier intervention leads to improved long-term outcomes.^13,14 The retrospective study by Sakamoto and Tohyama utilized JROADHF (Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure), a nationwide HF database in Japan, to investigate the prognostic impact of early catheter ablation within 90 days of admission in patients with AF who were hospitalized for HF exacerbation. The study demonstrates that early catheter ablation for AF in patients admitted for HF may lead to significant clinical benefits, including fewer hospitalizations, improved functional capacity, and better quality of life.¹⁵

Management in Special Populations

Managing AF in the elderly, frail, or those with multiple comorbidities presents unique challenges, particularly in balancing the risks of aggressive treatments like anticoagulation and ablation. The management of AF in patients with HF, especially those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), also requires tailored strategies. Considerations for other patient populations are included below.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). AF is common in HCM due to LA enlargement and fibrosis, and managing it is complicated by an increased stroke risk and difficulties in rhythm control. Antiarrhythmic drugs must be chosen carefully to avoid worsening outflow obstruction.¹⁶

Heart failure. AF and HF frequently coexist, creating a bidirectional relationship where each condition worsens the other. In HF with reduced EF, rhythm control strategies including catheter ablation may improve outcomes, whereas rate control is often prioritized in HFpEF. The choice of anticoagulation is crucial, as patients with HF are at high risk for both stroke and bleeding. Emerging therapies, such as novel antiarrhythmics and upstream interventions targeting fibrosis, may offer new management pathways for AF in HF patients. In the event of failure of rate or rhythm control with standard therapies, atrioventricular node ablation with implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator should be considered.¹⁷

Amyloidosis. AF in amyloidosis is also complicated by amyloid deposits, causing atrial fibrosis, impairing atrial contraction, and raising stroke risk. Anticoagulation, rhythm control, and catheter ablation are more challenging due to organ dysfunction and the risk of complications.¹⁸

Long-Term Management and Outcomes

AF is a chronic condition that requires long-term management to control symptoms and reduce stroke risk. Nonadherence to anticoagulation therapy, particularly in the elderly due to bleeding concerns, is a significant issue. Tailored follow-up strategies, including remote monitoring, can help detect AF recurrences. The psychological impact, including anxiety and depression, should also be addressed as part of comprehensive care.^7,13

Conclusion

AF management remains complex and requires individualized care. Advances in diagnostic tools, pharmacotherapy, and catheter ablation techniques have improved patient outcomes. However, challenges remain such as early diagnosis, stroke prevention, and long-term care. Future research, personalized management strategies, and multidisciplinary care will be critical in optimizing outcomes for AF patients. 

Disclosure: The authors have completed and returned the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. They report no conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.

References

1.    Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(38):2893-2962. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210

2. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2019;140(2):e125-e151. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665 

3. Gopinathannair R, Chen LY, Chung MK, et al. Managing atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14(6):HAE0000000000000078. doi:10.1161/hae.0000000000000078 

4. Gopinathannair R, Etheridge SP, Marchlinski FE, Spinale FG, Lakkireddy D, Olshansky B. Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(15):1714-1728. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.038 

5. Ugowe FE, Jackson LR 2nd, Thomas KL. Atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus: can we modify stroke risk through glycemic control? Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12(5):e007351. doi:10.1161/circep.119.007351 

6. 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. 2022;79(19):1932-1948. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.337 

7. Hohnloser S, Kuck KH. Randomized trial of rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation: the Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (PIAF). Eur Heart J. 2001;22(10):801-802. doi:10.1053/euhj.2001.2596 

8. Akella K, Yarlagadda B, Murtaza G, et al. Epicardial versus endocardial closure. Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2020;12(1):97-108. doi:10.1016/j.ccep.2019.11.011 

9. Yoshimura H, Providencia R, Finan C, Schmidt AF, Lip GY. Refining the CHA2DS2VASC risk stratification scheme: shall we drop the sex category criterion? Europace. 2024;26(11):euae280. doi:10.1093/europace/euae280

10. Parameswaran R, Al-Kaisey AM, Kalman JM. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: current indications and evolving technologies. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;18(3):210-225. doi:10.1038/s41569-020-00451-x 

11. Nattel S, Shiroshita-Takeshita A, Brundel BJJM, Rivard L. Mechanisms of atrial fibrillation: lessons from animal models. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2005;48(1):9-28. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2005.06.002 

12. Prystowsky EN. Rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: has the debate been settled? Circulation. 2022;146(21):1561-1563. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.122.060243 

13. Rivard L, Friberg L, Conen D, et al. Atrial fibrillation and dementia: a report from the AF-Screen International Collaboration. Circulation. 2022;145(5):392-409. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.121.055018 

14. Dalgaard F, Xu H, Matsouaka RA, et al. Management of atrial fibrillation in older patients by morbidity burden: insights from Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(23):e017024. doi:10.1161/JAHA.120.017024 

15. Sakamoto K, Tohyama T, Ide T, et al. Efficacy of early catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation after admission for heart failure. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023;9(9):1948-1959. doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2023.05.038

16. Chamberlain AM, Alonso A, Gersh BJ, et al. Multimorbidity and the risk of hospitalization and death in atrial fibrillation: a population-based study. Am Heart J. 2017 Mar;185:74-84. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2016.11.008 

17. Zeitler EP, Johnson AE, Cooper LB, Steinberg BA, Houston BA. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2024;12(9):1528-1539. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2024.06.016 

18. Jin C, Cui C, Seplowe M, et al. Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: a review of current literature and views. Cardiol Rev. 2022;32(2):131-139. doi:10.1097/crd.0000000000000489