A prospective STudy using invAsive haemodynamic measurements foLLowing catheter ablation for AF and early HFpEF: STALL AF-HFpEF

Research Priorities for Atrial Fibrillation in Australia: A Statement From the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Clinical Arrhythmia Theme

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent in the Australian community, ranking amongst the highest globally. The consequences of AF are significant. Stroke, dementia and heart failure risk are increased substantially, hospitalisations are amongst the highest for all cardiovascular causes, and Australians living with AF suffer from substantial symptoms that impact quality of life. Australian research has made a significant impact at the global level in advancing the care of patients living with AF. However, new strategies are required to reduce the growing incidence of AF and its associated healthcare demand. The Australian Cardiovascular Alliance (ACvA) has led the development of an arrhythmia clinical theme with the objective of tackling major research priorities to achieve a reduction in AF burden across Australia. In this summary, we highlight these research priorities with particular focus on the strengths of Australian research and the strategies needed to move forward in reducing incident AF and improving outcomes for those who live with this chronic condition.

Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic therapy for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) treated with catheter ablation (CA) vs antiarrhythmic therapy (AAT) are not well known.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared morbidity and mortality of patients with AF and HFpEF treated with CA vs AAT.

METHODS

AF and HFpEF patients from January 2017 to June 2023 were identified in TriNetX, a large global population-based database. Patients with prior diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or crossover between AAT and CA were excluded. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, type of AF, comorbidities, and cardiovascular medications were compared. The 2 groups were 1:1 propensity score matched for outcomes analysis. All-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accident/transient ischemic attack, and acute heart failure were compared with Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CA (n = 1959) and AAT (n = 7689) were 1:1 propensity score matched, yielding 3632 patients with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Compared with AAT, CA was associated with decreased mortality (9.2% vs 20.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.431; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.359-0.518; P < .001). In addition, CA was associated with reduced HFpEF (HR, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.550-0.741; P < .001) and acute HFrEF (HR, 0.645; 95% CI, 0.452-0.920; P = .015). There was no difference in composite of cerebrovascular accident/transient ischemic attack (HR, 0.935; 95% CI, 0.725-1.207; P = .607).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study of patients with AF and HFpEF, CA was associated with lower mortality and risk of acute heart failure compared with AAT.

H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores performance and the additional value of cardiac structure and function in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The H2FPEF and the HFA-PEFF scores have become useful tools to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Their accuracy in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) is less known. This study evaluates the association of these scores with invasive left atrial pressure (LAP) and the additional value of cardiac measures.

METHODS

This is a multicenter observational prospective study involving patients undergoing ablation of AF. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%, congenital cardiopathy, any severe cardiac valve disease and prosthetic valves were excluded. Elevated filling pressure was defined as a mean LAP ≥15 mmHg.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients were enrolled in the study (mean age 65.2 ± 9.1 years, 32% female, mean LVEF 56.9 ± 7.9%). Patients with H2FPEF ≥ 6 or HFA-PEFF ≥5 had higher values of NTproBNP and more impaired cardiac function. However, neither H2FPEF nor HFA-PEFF score showed a meaningful association with elevated mean LAP (respectively, OR 1.05 [95%CI 0.83-1.34] p = 0.64, and OR 1.09 [95%CI: 0.86-1.39] p = 0.45). The addition of LA indexed minimal volume (LAVi min) improved the ability of the scores (baseline C-statistic 0.51 [95%CI 0.41-0.61] for the H2FPEF score and 0.53 [95%CI 0.43-0.64] for the HFA-PEFF score) to diagnose elevated filling pressure (H2FPEF + LAVi min: C-statistic 0.70 [95%CI 0.60-0.80], p-value = 0.005; HFA-PEFF + LAVi min: C-statistic 0.70 [95%CI 0.60-0.80], p-value = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of patients with a history of AF, the use of the available diagnostic scores did not predict elevated mean LAP. The integration of LAVi min improved the ability to correctly identify elevated filling pressure.

Catheter-based ablation to improve outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 trial

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure (HF) and negatively impacts outcomes. The role of ablation-based rhythm control in patients with AF and HF with preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is not known. The CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 (CAtheter-Based Ablation of atrial fibrillation compared to conventional treatment in patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial will determine whether early catheter ablation for AF can prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.

METHODS

CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 (NCT05508256) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, interventional multicentre strategy trial with blinded outcome assessment. Approximately 1548 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF diagnosed within 24 months prior to enrolment and HFpEF or HFmrEF will be randomized to early catheter ablation within 4 weeks after randomization or to usual care. All patients receive anticoagulation, rate control, and HF management according to current guideline recommendations. Usual care can include rhythm control in symptomatic patients. Patients will be followed until the end of the trial for the primary outcome, a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and total unplanned hospitalizations for HF or acute coronary syndrome. The safety outcome comprises complications of catheter ablation and death. The trial is powered for a rate ratio of 0.75 (two-sided alpha = 0.05, 1-beta = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 will define the role of systematic and early catheter ablation in patients with AF and HFpEF or HFmrEF.

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2 weeks before and 6 months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-6.73; P < 0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.82-1.86, P = 0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6 months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Correlates with Fibrotic Atrial Myopathy in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Background: The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is high. Impaired left atrial (LA) function is a major determinant in HFpEF. However, the extent of electrical LA tissue degeneration in HFpEF is unknown. Therefore, we sought to investigate the amount of arrhythmogenic and fibrotic LA tissue degeneration in HFpEF patients presenting for AF ablation. Methods: We prospectively screened consecutive patients presenting for first time AF ablation. The HFA-PEFF score was used to identify HFpEF patients. Bipolar high-density voltage mapping was created in sinus rhythm prior to ablation to evaluate the general LA bipolar voltage and quantify areas of low voltage. LVAs were defined as areas with bipolar voltage < 0.5 mV. Results: In total, 187 patients were prospectively enrolled (age 65 ± 11 years, 45% female, 46% persistent AF, 25% HFpEF) in this study. HFpEF patients were older and had a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (70 ± 9 vs. 63 ± 11 years and 3.2 ± 1.5 vs. 2.3 ± 1.5, each p < 0.001, respectively). Overall, low-voltage areas (LVAs) were present in 97 patients (52%), whereas 76% of the HFpEF population had LVA, as compared to 44% of patients without HFpEF (p < 0.001). HFpEF was associated with generally decreased LA bipolar voltage (1.09 ± 0.64 vs. 1.83 ± 0.91 mV; p < 0.001) and predictive of the presence of low-voltage areas (76% vs. 44% p < 0.001). The HFA-PEFF score inversely correlated with LA bipolar voltage (=-0.454; p < 0.001). Conclusions: HFpEF closely relates to generally decreased LA bipolar voltage and to the existence of fibrotic and arrhythmogenic LA tissue degeneration.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: catheter ablation vs. standard medical therapy - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines advocate for catheter ablation (CA) over standard medical therapy (SMT) for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the effectiveness of CA vs. SMT in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Embase until February 2024 were systematically searched. Given the limited number of randomized studies, propensity score-matched observational studies comparing CA with SMT in AF patients with HFpEF were also included. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight studies that enrolled 17,717 SMT and 2537 CA patients were included. CA was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85). The risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.83), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), and AF recurrence (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73) were also lower in the CA group.

CONCLUSION

CA demonstrated significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits compared to SMT in the HFpEF population.

Differentiating Left Atrial Pressure Responses in Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Diagnosing Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Managing Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Increased left atrial pressure (LAP) contributes to dyspnea and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in baseline LAP and LAP response to rapid pacing between paroxysmal and persistent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This observational study prospectively enrolled 1369 participants who underwent AF catheter ablation, excluding those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. H2FPEF score was calculated by echocardiography and baseline characteristics. Patients underwent LAP measurements during AF, sinus rhythm, and heart rates of 90, 100, 110, and 120 beats per minute (bpm), induced by right atrial pacing and isoproterenol. The baseline LAP-peak in the persistent AF group consistently exceeded that in the paroxysmal AF (PAF) group across each H2FPEF score subgroup (all P<0.05). LAP-peak increased with pacing (19.5 to 22.5 mm Hg) but decreased with isoproterenol (20.4 to 18.4 mm Hg). Under pacing, patients with PAF exhibited a significantly lower LAP-peak (90 bpm) than those with persistent AF (17.7±8.2 versus 21.1±9.3 mm Hg, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in LAP-peak (120 bpm) between the 2 groups (22.1±8.1 versus 22.9±8.4 mm Hg, P=0.056) because the LAP-peak significantly increased with heart rate in the group with PAF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAF exhibited lower baseline LAP with greater increases during rapid pacing compared with individuals with persistent AF, indicating a need to revise the H2FPEF score for distinguishing PAF from persistent AF and emphasizing the importance of rate and rhythm control in PAF for symptom control.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02138695.

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare catheter ablation and medical therapy (antiarrhythmics for rhythm or rate control) in patients with AF and HFpEF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Outcomes were the composite end points of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all-cause rehospitalization, and HF hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included 20,257 patients from 8 studies. Of those, 3 were derived from RCTs, either through post hoc analysis or subgroup analysis, and 5 were observational studies. The median follow-up ranged from 24.6 to 61.2 months. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.83; P = .001; I2 = 66%), all-cause death (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99; P = .047; I2 = 61%), cardiovascular death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P = .014; I2 = 22%), and HF hospitalization (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.82; P = .011; I2 = 87%).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for nearly half of all heart failure cases and has a prevalence that is expected to rise with the growing ageing population. HFpEF is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Specific HFpEF risk factors include age, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and atrial fibrillation. Haemodynamic contributions to HFpEF include changes in left ventricular structure, diastolic and systolic dysfunction, left atrial myopathy, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular dysfunction, chronotropic incompetence, and vascular dysfunction. Inflammation, fibrosis, impaired nitric oxide signalling, sarcomere dysfunction, and mitochondrial and metabolic defects contribute to the cellular and molecular changes observed in HFpEF. HFpEF impacts multiple organ systems beyond the heart, including the skeletal muscle, peripheral vasculature, lungs, kidneys and brain. The diagnosis of HFpEF can be made in individuals with signs and symptoms of heart failure with abnormality in natriuretic peptide levels or evidence of cardiopulmonary congestion, facilitated by the use of HFpEF risk scores and additional imaging and testing with the exclusion of HFpEF mimics. Management includes initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy and management of comorbidities. Given the significant impact of HFpEF on quality of life, future research efforts should include a particular focus on how patients can live better with this disease.

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) effectively treats atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improving clinical outcomes. However, its benefits for AF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still unclear.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for studies investigating outcomes of CA in AF patients with HFpEF. Efficacy indicators included freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) free AF elimination. Safety indicators comprised total complications, HF admission, all-cause admission, and all-cause mortality. Sixteen studies with 20,796 patients included in our research.

Results

The comprehensive analysis demonstrated that, when comparing CA with medical therapy in HFpEF, no significant differences were observed in terms of HF admissions, all-cause admissions, and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.12-1.51, P = 0.19), (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.48-1.27, P = 0.31), and (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.83-1.44, P = 0.51)], while freedom from AF was significantly higher in CA (OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.99-11.54, P < 0.00001). Compared with HFrEF, CA in HFpEF showed similar rates of freedom from AF, AAD-free AF elimination, total complications, and all-cause admission were similar [(OR:0.91; 95% CI: 0.71,1.17, P =0.47), (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.50-1.86, P = 0.93), (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.47-3.41, P = 0.64), (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.73; P = 0.63)]. However, CA in HFpEF was associated with lower rates of HF admission and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.60; P = 0.0002), (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.85; P = 0.02)]. Compared with patients without HF, CA in HFpEF patients exhibited lower rates of AAD-free AF elimination (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.75; P = 0.001). However, their rates of freedom from AF and total complications were similar [(OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P = 0.06), (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.90; P = 0.38)].

Conclusion

This meta-analysis conducted provided a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CA in patients with AF and HFpEF. The results suggest that CA may represent a valuable treatment strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier (CRD42024514169).

Screening for Unrecognized HFpEF in Atrial Fibrillation and for Unrecognized Atrial Fibrillation in HFpEF

Because of the bidirectional relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), individuals with either condition require consideration of screening for the other. In this review, we summarize current evidence and rationale for screening for occult HFpEF in adults with clinical AF; and occult AF in patients with clinically recognized HFpEF. Assessment of pretest probability for occult HFpEF in symptomatic AF patients may help guide additional testing such as exercise right heart catheterization to diagnose HFpEF and guide HFpEF-specific therapies. In patients with HFpEF, AF screening will identify cases of occult AF where anticoagulation may decrease stroke risk, and correlation of previously unknown AF episodes with paroxysmal symptoms may prompt consideration for rhythm control. Therefore, screening may help clinicians understand the etiology of the often-overlapping symptoms, and it may help guide treatments to slow progression of both conditions and their complications.

Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice timely and fully, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2‑VASc‑60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of the Asian AF population. The guidelines also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

2023 Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased exponentially in many developed countries, including Australia and New Zealand. This Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation from the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) recognises healthcare factors, expertise and expenditure relevant to the Australian and New Zealand healthcare environments including considerations of potential implications for First Nations Peoples. The statement is cognisant of international advice but tailored to local conditions and populations, and is intended to be used by electrophysiologists, cardiologists and general physicians across all disciplines caring for patients with AF. They are also intended to provide guidance to healthcare facilities seeking to establish or maintain catheter ablation for AF.

Small Left Ventricle in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated With Increased Cardiovascular Risk

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear whether small left ventricle (LV) is an adverse structural prognostic feature in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between small LV and risk of cardiovascular events in AF population.

METHODS

From the China-AF registry, 7,764 patients with AF were enrolled and divided into groups with normal, small, and large LV size based on left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) measurement per the American Society of Echocardiography references. Cox models were used to assess the association between LV size or LVEDD with composite cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, or major bleeding).

RESULTS

There were 308 (4.0%) participants assessed with small LV who were older, with lower body mass and blood pressure, and fewer comorbidities, and 429 (5.5%) were identified with large LV. Compared with the normal LV group, small LV and large LV were significantly associated with higher incidence of composite cardiovascular events (adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.54 [95% CI: 1.07-2.20] for small LV; aHR: 1.36 [95% CI: 1.02-1.81] for large LV) and cardiovascular death (aHR: 1.94 [95% CI: 1.14-3.28] for small LV; aHR: 1.83 [95% CI: 1.24-2.69] for large LV). Small LV was also associated with increased risk of major bleeding [aHR: 2.21 [95% CI: 1.01-4.86]). A U-shaped relationship between LVEDD and composite cardiovascular events was identified (Pnonlinear < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective AF cohort, small LV was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, which needed consideration in risk stratification and management for patients with AF. (ChiCTR-OCH-13003729).

Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice in a timely and comprehensive manner, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of the Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of the Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering have jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines have comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2-VASc-60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of AF in the Asian population. The guidelines have also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: New challenges and new hopes

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem affecting millions of adults worldwide. HF with preserved ejection fraction, i.e. > 50 %, (HFpEF) accounts for more than half of all HF cases, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing with the aging of the population and the growing prevalence of metabolic disorders such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension. Diagnosis of HFpEF requires a combination of numerous echocardiographic parameters and also results of natriuretic peptide assays, to which may be added the need for a stress test. HFpEF is characterized by complex, interrelated pathophysiological mechanisms, which must be understood. This complexity probably accounts for the lack of evidence-based medicine compared with HF with reduced EF. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made recently, with a high level of evidence obtained for the SGLT2 inhibitor class on the one hand, and promising data with new drugs targeting more specifically certain mechanisms such as obesity and inflammation on the other.

Advance in the pharmacological and comorbidities management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: evidence from clinical trials

The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for approximately 50% of the total heart failure population, and with the aging of the population and the increasing prevalence of hypertension, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise and has become the most common subtype of heart failure. Compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFpEF has a more complex pathophysiology and is more often associated with hypertension, T2DM, obesity, atrial fibrillation, renal insufficiency, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and other comorbidities. HFpEF has generally been considered a syndrome with high phenotypic heterogeneity, and no effective treatments have been shown to reduce mortality to date. Diuretics and comorbidity management are traditional treatments for HFpEF; however, they are mostly empirical due to a lack of clinical evidence in the setting of HFpEF. With the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER results, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors become the first evidence-based therapies to reduce rehospitalization for heart failure. Subgroup analyses of the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, and CHARM-Preserved trials suggest that angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, spironolactone, and angiotensin II receptor blockers may be beneficial in patients at the lower end of the ejection fraction spectrum. Other potential pharmacotherapies represented by non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists finerenone and antifibrotic agent pirfenidone also hold promise for the treatment of HFpEF. This article intends to review the clinical evidence on current pharmacotherapies of HFpEF, as well as the comorbidities management of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, T2DM, obesity, pulmonary hypertension, renal insufficiency, obstructive sleep apnea, and iron deficiency, to optimize the clinical management of HFpEF.

Ablation for atrial fibrillation improves the outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have worse clinical outcomes than those with sinus rhythm (SR). We aim to investigate whether maintaining SR in patients with HFpEF through a strategy such as AF ablation would improve outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cohort study that analysed 1034 patients (median age 69 [63-76] years, 46.2% [478/1034] female) with HFpEF and AF. Of these, 392 patients who underwent first-time AF ablation were assigned to the ablation group, and the remaining 642 patients, who received only medical therapy, were assigned to the no ablation group. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the ablation group compared to the no ablation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82], P = 0.003) in the propensity score-matched model. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that the benefit of AF ablation was mainly driven by a reduction in rehospitalization for worsening heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.80], P = 0.003). Patients in the ablation group showed a 33% relative decrease in atrial tachycardia/AF recurrence compared to the no ablation group (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF and AF, the strategy of AF ablation to maintain SR was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure.

Identification of Subclinical Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) commonly coexist. We hypothesize that patients with symptomatic AF but without overt clinical HF commonly exhibit subclinical HFpEF according to established hemodynamic criteria.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to use invasive hemodynamics to investigate the prevalence and implications of subclinical HFpEF in AF ablation patients.

METHODS

Consecutive symptomatic AF ablation patients were prospectively recruited. Diagnosis of subclinical HFpEF was undertaken by invasive assessment of left atrial pressure (LAP). Participants had HFpEF if the baseline mean LAP was >15 mm Hg and early HFpEF if the mean LAP was >15 mm Hg after a 500-mL fluid challenge. LA compliance was assessed invasively by monitoring the LAP and LA diameter during direct LA infusion of 15 mL/kg normal saline. LA compliance was calculated as Δ LA diameter/ΔLAP. LA cardiomyopathy was further studied with exercise echocardiography and electrophysiology study. Functional impact was evaluated using cardiopulmonary exercise testing and the AF Symptom Severity questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 120 participants, 57 (47.5%) had HFpEF, 31 (25.8%) had early HFpEF, and 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Both HFpEF and early HFpEF were associated with lower LA compliance compared with those without HFpEF (P < 0.001). Participants with HFpEF and early HFpEF also displayed decreased LA emptying fraction (P = 0.004), decreased LA voltage (P = 0.001), decreased VO2peak (P < 0.001), and increased AF symptom burden (P = 0.002) compared with those without HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Subclinical HFpEF is common in AF ablation patients and is characterized by a LA cardiomyopathy, decreased cardiopulmonary reserve and increased symptom burden. The diagnosis of HFpEF may identify patients with AF with the potential to benefit from novel HFpEF therapies. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).

Prevalence of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Based on Resting and Post-Tachycardia Pacing Left Atrial Pressure

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are frequent co-morbid conditions. In patients with symptomatic AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction the clinical diagnosis of HFpEF may be difficult, as history, examination, and echocardiography are not sensitive or specific. This study sought to assess the prevalence of HFpEF in patients undergoing AF ablation utilizing resting and post-tachycardia pacing left atrial pressure (LAP) measurements. This retrospective cohort study consisted of consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who had invasive hemodynamic assessment (IHA) of LAP under resting and post-tachycardia pacing conditions while undergoing AF ablation from 2020 to 2022 at a tertiary care academic medical center. Elevated LAP was defined as ≥15 mm Hg at rest and ≥15 mm Hg post-tachycardia pacing. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) normal resting and post-tachycardia pacing LAP (control group), (2) elevated resting LAP (apparent HFpEF), (3) normal resting but elevated post-tachycardia pacing LAP (occult HFpEF). A total of 78 patients were included with age 64.6 ± 9.1 years, 28 (36%) female, body mass index 33.3 ± 6.5 kg/m2, 5 (6%) paroxysmal and 73 (94%) persistent AF, and CHA2DS2-VASc 3.0 ± 1.5. IHA categorized 31 (40%), 32 (41%), and 15 patients (19%) into groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Notably, while only 9 patients (12%) were diagnosed with HFpEF based on clinical evaluation, 47 patients (60%) were diagnosed by IHA. IHA in patients undergoing AF ablation suggests a high prevalence of clinically undiagnosed HFpEF through a novel methodology measuring resting and post-tachycardia pacing LAP.

Efficacy of Early Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation After Admission for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Advances in catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) have improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) and AF. However, its optimal timing remains to be fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of early CA in patients with HF and AF hospitalized for worsening HF.

METHODS

From JROADHF (Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) (n = 13,238), patients with HF and AF who underwent CA within 90 days after admission for HF (early CA; n = 103) and those who did not (control; n = 2,683) were identified. Mortality was compared between these groups in the crude cohort, as well as in the propensity-matched cohort (n = 83 in each group).

RESULTS

In the crude cohort, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early CA group than in the control group (log-rank P < 0.001; HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.24-0.60). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was likewise significantly lower in the early CA group (log-rank P = 0.014; HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.88). Cardiovascular death and HF mortality were significantly lower in both cohorts (crude: Gray' test: P < 0.001 and P = 0.005; subdistribution HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13-0.63] and HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.13-0.75]; matched: Gray's test: P = 0.006 and P = 0.017; subdistribution HR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.08-0.70] and HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.84], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide representative real-world cohort, CA for AF within 90 days after admission for HF was associated with improved long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular and HF death in patients with HF and AF.

Effects of Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation on Cardiac Remodeling and Valvular Regurgitation in Patients with Heart Failure

PURPOSE

Previous studies investigating cardiac remodeling and functional regurgitation of rhythm control for atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of rhythm control for AF on cardiac remodeling and functional regurgitation in the spectrum of HF. Its effect on prognosis was explored.

METHODS

According to the treatment strategies of AF, the cohort was classified into the rhythm control and rate control groups. To further detect the implications of rhythm control on cardiac remodeling, functional regurgitation, and outcomes in HF subtypes, patients were further divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 828 patients were enrolled, with 307 patients in the rhythm control group and 521 patients in the rate control group. Over a median follow-up time of 3.8 years, patients with rhythm control treatments experienced improvements in biatrial structure parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional regurgitation (mitral and tricuspid regurgitation) compared with rate control treatment (p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that rhythm control reduced the risks of all-cause mortality (HR 0.436 [95% CI, 0.218-0.871], p = 0.019) in HFpEF and HF-related admissions in HFrEF (HR 0.500 [95% CI, 0.330-0.757], p = 0.001) and HFpEF (HR 0.541 [95% CI, 0.407-0.720], p < 0.001); these associations were similar after adjusting for multiple confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhythm control therapy can be considered an appropriate treatment strategy for the management of AF in HF to improve cardiac remodeling, functional regurgitation, and prognosis.

Low atrial natriuretic peptide to brain natriuretic peptide ratio is associated with left atrial remodeling

AIMS

Atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) deficiency is thought to be one of the causes of heart failure induced by atrial fibrillation (AF). Although ANP deficiency is thought to occur as a result of atrial remodeling, data to explain this mechanism are limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between ANP and left atrial remodeling or prognosis of heart failure in patients with AF ablation.

METHODS

In total, 373 consecutive patients who underwent initial ablation for persistent AF [age, 67 ± 10 years; female, 97 (26%)] were retrospectively enrolled. ANP and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were measured before the procedure and the ANP/BNP ratio was calculated. Left atrial volume index, left atrial appendage emptying velocity, and left atrial low-voltage areas (LVAs) were used as left atrial-remodeling parameters. The primary outcome of heart failure was defined as the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization due to worsening heart failure.

RESULTS

The median ANP level was 116 (71-178) pg/ml and the median ANP/BNP ratio was 0.65 (0.46-1.00). The ANP/BNP ratio decreased with increasing left atrial volume index or LVAs and with decreasing left atrial appendage emptying velocity. During the 5-year follow-up, freedom from the primary outcome was significantly lower in patients with ANP/BNP ratio ≤0.65 than in those with ANP/BNP ratio >0.65 (84.6% versus 95.6%, P  < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Secretion of ANP relative to BNP decreased with progression of left atrial remodeling in patients with AF ablation. Furthermore, prognosis of heart failure was poor in patients with a low ANP/BNP ratio.

Effect of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Mid-Range or Preserved Ejection Fraction - Pooled Analysis of the AF Frontier Ablation Registry and Hokuriku-Plus AF Registry

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized trial demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) is associated with a reduction in death or heart failure. However, the effect of catheter ablation for AF in patients with heart failure with mid-range or preserved EF is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We screened 899 AF patients (72.4% male, mean age 68.4 years) with heart failure and left ventricular EF ≥40% from 2 Japanese multicenter AF registries: the Atrial Fibrillation registry to Follow the long-teRm Outcomes and use of aNTIcoagulants aftER Ablation (AF Frontier Ablation Registry) as the ablation group (525 patients who underwent ablation) and the Hokuriku-Plus AF Registry as the medical therapy group (374 patients who did not undergo ablation). Propensity score matching was performed in these 2 registries to yield 106 matched patient pairs. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure. At 24.6 months, the ablation group had a significantly lower incidence of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.70; P=0.004) than the medical therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation for AF in patients with heart failure and mid-range or preserved EF was associated with a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently develop atrial fibrillation (AF). There are no randomized trials examining the effects of AF ablation on HFpEF outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of AF ablation vs usual medical therapy on markers of HFpEF severity, including exercise hemodynamics, natriuretic peptide levels, and patient symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with concomitant AF and HFpEF underwent exercise right heart catheterization and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. HFpEF was confirmed with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg on exercise. Patients were randomized to AF ablation vs medical therapy, with investigations repeated at 6 months. The primary outcome was change in peak exercise PCWP on follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients (mean age: 66.1 years; 51.6% females, 80.6% persistent AF) were randomized to AF ablation (n = 16) vs medical therapy (n = 15). Baseline characteristics were comparable across both groups. At 6 months, ablation reduced the primary outcome of peak PCWP from baseline (30.4 ± 4.2 to 25.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in peak relative VO2 (20.2 ± 5.9 to 23.1 ± 7.2 mL/kg/min; P < 0.01), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (794 ± 698 to 141 ± 60 ng/L; P = 0.04), and MLHF (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure) score (51 ± -21.9 to 16.6 ± 17.5; P < 0.01). No differences were detected in the medical arm. Following ablation, 50% no longer met exercise right heart catheterization-based criteria for HFpEF vs 7% in the medical arm (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

AF ablation improves invasive exercise hemodynamic parameters, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with concomitant AF and HFpEF.

Effects of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Early-Stage Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background

Hospitalization with a first episode of heart failure (HF) is a serious event associated with poor clinical outcomes in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Identification of HFpEF via detection of elevated left ventricular filling pressure at rest or during exercise may allow early intervention. Benefits of treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in established HFpEF have been reported, but use of MRAs is not well studied in early HFpEF without prior HF hospitalization.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 197 patients with HFpEF who did not have prior hospitalization but had been diagnosed by exercise stress echocardiography or catheterization. We examined changes in natriuretic peptide levels and echocardiographic parameters reflecting diastolic function following MRA initiation.

Results

Of the 197 patients with HFpEF, MRA treatment was initiated for 47 patients. After a median 3-month follow-up, reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels from baseline to follow-up was greater in patients treated with MRA than in those who were not (median, -200 pg/mL [interquartile range, -544 to -31] vs 67 pg/mL [interquartile range, -95 to 456], P < 0.0001 in 50 patients with paired data). Similar results were observed for the changes in B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Reduction in the left atrial volume index was also greater in the MRA-treated group than in the non-MRA-treated group after a median 7-month follow-up (77 patients with paired echocardiographic data). Patients with lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain experienced a greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels following MRA treatment. In the safety assessment, MRA modestly decreased renal function but did not change potassium levels.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that MRA treatment has potential benefits for early-stage HFpEF.

Heart failure: an update from the last years and a look at the near future

In the last years, major progress occurred in heart failure (HF) management. Quadruple therapy is now mandatory for all the patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Whilst verciguat is becoming available across several countries, omecamtiv mecarbil is waiting to be released for clinical use. Concurrent use of potassium-lowering agents may counteract hyperkalaemia and facilitate renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor implementations. The results of the EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trial were confirmed by the Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trial, and we now have, for the first time, evidence for treatment of also patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. In a pre-specified meta-analysis of major randomized controlled trials, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and HF hospitalization in the patients with HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. Other steps forward have occurred in the treatment of decompensated HF. Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial showed that the addition of intravenous acetazolamide to loop diuretics leads to greater decongestion vs. placebo. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to loop diuretics was evaluated in the CLOROTIC trial. Torasemide did not change outcomes, compared with furosemide, in TRANSFORM-HF. Ferric derisomaltose had an effect on the primary outcome of CV mortality or HF rehospitalizations in IRONMAN (rate ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.02; P = 0.070). Further options for the treatment of HF, including device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation, and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, are summarized in this article.

Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Limited data are available on the outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CBA in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AF referred for CBA-based PVI from two highly experienced electrophysiology centres were included in this retrospective study. Of 651 patients undergoing CBA, 471 cases were divided into four groups: No HF (n = 255), HFpEF (n = 101), HFmrEF (n = 78), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n = 37). Similar early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was found among groups (16.2% vs. 15.4% vs. 14.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.798), and no significant difference of long-term sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance was identified among the HFmrEF, HFpEF, and No HF groups (71.8% vs. 75.2% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.334). CBA is safe for patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF with similar complications compared with the No HF group (3.8% vs. 4.0% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.814). The reassessment of cardiac function after CBA showed that patients with HF indicated beneficial outcomes. Left atrial diameter (LAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly improved in the HFmrEF group. There were 41.6% of patients in the HFpEF group who were completely relieved from HF. LAD and New York Heart Association (NYHA) were associated with recurrence in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, and the maintenance of SR was an independent predictor of NYHA improvement for all HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from CBA with high SR maintenance and significant HF improvement.

Dyspnea in patients with atrial fibrillation: Mechanisms, assessment and an interdisciplinary and integrated care approach

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained heart rhythm disorder and is often associated with symptoms that can significantly impact quality of life and daily functioning. Palpitations are the cardinal symptom of AF and many AF therapies are targeted towards relieving this symptom. However, up to two-third of patients also complain of dyspnea as a predominant self-reported symptom. In clinical practice it is often challenging to ascertain whether dyspnea represents an AF-related symptom or a symptom of concomitant cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities, since common AF comorbidities such as heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease share similar symptoms. In addition, therapeutic approaches specifically targeting dyspnea have not been well validated. Thus, assessing and treating dyspnea can be difficult. This review describes the latest knowledge on the burden and pathophysiology of dyspnea in AF patients. We discuss the role of heart rhythm control interventions as well as the management of AF risk factors and comorbidities with the goal to achieve maximal relief of dyspnea. Given the different and often complex mechanistic pathways leading to dyspnea, dyspneic AF patients will likely profit from an integrated multidisciplinary approach to tackle all factors and mechanisms involved. Therefore, we propose an interdisciplinary and integrated care pathway for the work-up of dyspnea in AF patients.

Safety, Efficacy and Prognostic Benefit of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Up to 65% of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) develop AF during the course of the disease. This occurrence is associated with adverse outcomes, including pump failure death. Because AF and HFpEF are mutually reinforcing risk factors, sinus rhythm restoration may represent a disease-modifying intervention. While catheter ablation exhibits acceptable safety and efficacy profiles, no randomised trials have compared AF ablation with medical management in HFpEF. However, catheter ablation has been reported to result in lower natriuretic peptides, lower filling pressures, greater peak cardiac output and improved functional capacity in HFpEF. There is growing evidence that catheter ablation may reduce HFpEF severity, hospitalisation and mortality compared to medical management. Based on indirect evidence, early catheter ablation and minimally extensive atrial injury should be favoured. Hence, individualised ablation strategies stratified by stepwise substrate inducibility provide a logical basis for catheter-based rhythm control in this heterogenous population. Randomised trials are needed for definitive evidence-based guidelines.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Coexistence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, affecting morbidity and prognosis. This study evaluates outcome after cryoballoon ablation for AF in HFpEF compared with patients without heart failure.

METHODS

A total of 102 AF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% undergoing cryoballoon ablation were prospectively enrolled. Baseline evaluation included echocardiography, stress echocardiography, 6-minute walk test, biomarkers, and quality of life assessment (Short-Form-36). Procedural parameters and clinical, functional and echocardiographic end points at follow-up ≥12 months after AF ablation were compared between patients with and without HFpEF.

RESULTS

Patients with HFpEF (n=24) were older (median, 74 years versus 65 years; P=0.001) more often female (83% versus 28%; P<0.001) and characterized by more pronounced AF-related symptoms (median European Heart Rhythm Association score 3 versus 2; P<0.001), higher left atrial pressures (median, 14 mm Hg versus 10 mm Hg; P=0.008), reduced left atrial-appendage velocity (median, 36 cm/s versus 59 cm/s; P<0.001), and reduced distance in the 6-minute walk test (median, 488 m versus 539 m; P<0.001). Patients with HFpEF more often experienced AF recurrence (57% versus 23%; P=0.003), repeat AF ablation (39% versus 14%; P=0.01) and AF-related rehospitalization (26% versus 7%; P=0.016). Heart failure symptoms and elevated cardiac biomarkers persisted, even in patients with HFpEF with successful rhythm control at follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up showed progression of adverse left atrial remodeling and no relevant improvement in diastolic function in HFpEF. Quality of life improved in patients without HFpEF, whereas patients with HFpEF still exhibited a lower physical component summary score (median, 41.5 versus 53.4; P<0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF constitute a distinct subgroup with elevated risk for AF recurrence after cryoballon ablation. Functional hallmarks of HFpEF persist, irrespective of rhythm status at follow-up. Future research is needed to optimize treatment strategies in patients with HFpEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04317911.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia among patients with heart failure (HF), and HF is the most common cause of death for patients presenting with clinical AF. AF is frequently associated with pathological atrial myocardial dysfunction and remodeling, a triad that has been called atrial myopathy. AF can be the cause or consequence of clinical HF, and the directionality varies between individual patients and across the spectrum of HF. Although initial trials suggested no advantage for a systematic rhythm control strategy in HF with reduced ejection fraction, recent data suggest that select patients may benefit from attempts to maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation. Preliminary data also show a close relationship among AF, left atrial myopathy, mitral regurgitation, and HF with preserved ejection, with potential clinical benefits to catheter ablation therapy. The modern management of AF in HF also requires consideration of the degree of atrial myopathy and chronicity of AF, in addition to the pathogenesis and phenotype of the underlying left ventricular HF. In this review, we summarize the contemporary management of AF and provide practical guidance and areas in need of future investigation.

Outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

Limited real-world data exist on early outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare rates of index procedural complications and 30-day readmissions after AF ablation in patients with HFpEF, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and without heart failure.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), we examined 50,299 admissions of adults with heart failure undergoing AF catheter ablation between 2010 and 2014. Using ICD-9-CM codes, we identified procedural complications and causes of readmission after AF ablation.

Results

From 2010 to 2014, the prevalence of HFpEF among patients undergoing AF ablation increased from 3.05% to 7.35% (P for trend <.001). Compared to patients without heart failure, patients with HFpEF had significantly increased procedural complications and index mortality (8.4% vs 6.2% and 0.30% vs 0.08%, respectively; P = .016 and P = .010, respectively). Index complication rates between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF were similar. All-cause 30-day readmissions occurred in 18.3% of patients with HFpEF compared to 9.5% of patients without heart failure (P <.001). Compared to no heart failure, the presence of HFpEF was independently associated with all-cause readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.96; P = .002), but not with procedural complications, cardiac readmissions, or early mortality.

Conclusion

Rates of 30-day readmissions after AF ablation are high in patients with HFpEF. However, after adjustment for age and comorbidities, complications and early mortality after AF ablation between patients with HFpEF and those without heart failure are comparable.

Comorbidities in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common causes of hospitalization and death in industrialized countries. Demographic changes with an aging population are expected to further increase the prevalence of chronic heart failure. The associated increase in comorbidities in patients with chronic heart failure leads to a less favorable prognosis for survival. A selection of the major comorbidities discussed in this review—along with prevalence, impact on prognosis, treatment approaches, and current study status—include atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, coronary artery disease, coronary microvascular dysfunction, renal dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, reduced lymphatic reserve, and the effects on oxygen utilization and physical activity. The complex clinical picture of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging in the nearly absence of evidence-based therapy. Except for comorbidity-specific guidelines, no HFpEF-specific treatment of comorbidities can be recommended at this time. Optimized care is becoming increasingly relevant to reducing hospitalizations through a seamless inpatient and outpatient care structure. Current treatment is focused on symptom relief and management of associated comorbidities. Therefore, prevention through early minimization of risk factors currently remains the best approach.

Heart failure and catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Navigating the difficult waters of heart failure phenotypes

The use of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFA) is increasing and it has now been extended to include higher risk patients with heart failure (HF), based on evidence from observational studies and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicating it as safe and beneficial in terms of quality of life, AF recurrence and hospital readmissions in the short-to-middle term. However, the RCTs so far have been relatively small with short follow-up, and few larger trials with long follow-up inconclusive about hard outcomes for large patient crossover undermining the robustness of the results. Importantly, most RCTs involved HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). In contrast, most observational studies show that the majority of ablated HF patients in clinical practice have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a condition representing roughly half of all HF patients. This article provides an overview of the available scientific evidence in this clinical field and examines the current guideline recommendations. In the absence of robust evidence-based research, the recommendations on AFA in HF may be inconsistent or abstain from taking firm positions, particularly regarding AFA in HFpEF. There is need for clinical research in such a surprisingly orphan setting, in parallel with the current attempts to sort out the knotty question of the HF phenotypes, in particular, again, of the HFpEF phenotypes.

Right atrial pressure represents cumulative cardiac burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Right-sided filling pressure is elevated in some patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We hypothesized that right atrial pressure (RAP) would represent the cumulative burden of abnormalities in the left heart, pulmonary vasculature, and the right heart.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Echocardiography was performed in 399 patients with HFpEF. RAP was estimated from inferior vena cava morphology and its respiratory change [estimated right atrial pressure (eRAP)], and patients were divided according to eRAP (3 or ≥8 mmHg). Patients with higher eRAP displayed more severe abnormalities in LV diastolic function as well as right heart structure and function than those with normal eRAP. Cardiac deaths or HF hospitalization occurred in 84 patients over a median follow-up of 19.0 months (interquartile range 6.7-36.9). The presence of higher eRAP was independently associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.20 vs. normal eRAP group, 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.62, P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier curves separating the patients into four groups based on eRAP and E/e' ratio showed that event-free survival varied among the groups, providing an incremental prognostic value of eRAP over E/e' ratio. The classification and regression tree analysis demonstrated that eRAP was the strongest predictor of the outcome followed by right ventricular dimension, E/e' ratio, and estimated right ventricular systolic pressure, stratifying the patients into four risk groups (incident rate 8.8-72.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data may provide new insights into the prognostic role of RAP in the complex pathophysiology of HFpEF and suggest the utility of eRAP for the risk stratification in patients with HFpEF.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Mechanisms and Treatment Strategies

Approximately half of all patients with heart failure (HF) have a preserved ejection fraction, and the prevalence is growing rapidly given the aging population in many countries and the rising prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Functional capacity and quality of life are severely impaired in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and morbidity and mortality are high. In striking contrast to HF with reduced ejection fraction, there are few effective treatments currently identified for HFpEF, and these are limited to decongestion by diuretics, promotion of a healthy active lifestyle, and management of comorbidities. Improved phenotyping of subgroups within the overall HFpEF population might enhance individualization of treatment. This review focuses on the current understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying HFpEF and treatment strategies for this complex syndrome.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: Prime time for ablation!

Among heart failure (HF) patients, the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with a marked worsening of HF symptoms and increased morbidity and mortality. Among AF patients, 30%–40% experience at least 1 HF episode. New data suggest that, in HF patients, AF rhythm control is superior to rate control and that rhythm control by catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs. In recent years, several trials that addressed the impact of AF ablation on morbidity and mortality included HF patients; however, studies also have specifically investigated the growing cohort of patients suffering from both HF and AF. Although the majority of these trials showed a marked benefit of AF ablation, there are hints that not all HF patients benefit equally from AF ablation. AF treatment in HF is challenging because the same cardiac morbidities that lead to HF can also act as risk factors for the development of the arrhythmogenic substrate that causes AF. In many patients, this arrhythmogenic substrate can be successfully treated by antral pulmonary vein isolation pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, due to advanced atrial disease, some patients also might require multiple procedures and/or “PVI plus” ablation strategies. In this review, we summarize current data on the effect of AF ablation in HF patients, with a special focus on the beneficial effect of AF ablation in different clinical HF subgroups.

The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF algorithms for predicting exercise intolerance and abnormal hemodynamics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Exercise intolerance is a primary manifestation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with abnormal hemodynamics and a poor quality of life. Two multiparametric scoring systems have been proposed to diagnose HFpEF. This study sought to determine the performance of the H₂FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise capacity and echocardiographic findings of intracardiac pressures during exercise in subjects with dyspnea on exertion referred for bicycle stress echocardiography. In a subset, simultaneous expired gas analysis was performed to measure the peak oxygen consumption (VO₂). Patients with HFpEF (n = 83) and controls without HF (n = 104) were enrolled. The H₂FPEF score was obtainable for all patients while the HFA-PEFF score could not be calculated for 23 patients (feasibility 88%). Both H₂FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores correlated with a higher E/e' ratio (r = 0.49 and r = 0.46), lower systolic tricuspid annular velocity (r =  - 0.44 and =  - 0.24), and lower cardiac output (r =  - 0.28 and r =  - 0.24) during peak exercise. Peak VO₂ and exercise duration decreased with an increase in H₂FPEF scores (r =  - 0.40 and r =  - 0.32). The H₂FPEF score predicted a reduced aerobic capacity (AUC 0.71, p = 0.0005), but the HFA-PEFF score did not (p = 0.07). These data provide insights into the role of the H₂FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise intolerance and abnormal hemodynamics in patients presenting with exertional dyspnea.

Identification of Patients with Preclinical Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction Using the H2FPEF Score

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common disorder with few effective treatments. There is currently no evidence-based method to identify preclinical HFpEF. The H2FPEF score is a validated instrument to identify patients with overt HFpEF. Here we show the H2FPEF score can identify individuals with preclinical HFpEF. Among individuals where heart failure was excluded (n=160), increasing H2FPEF score was shown to be associated with greater left atrial dilation, left ventricular hypertrophy, and more severe diastolic dysfunction. Patients with increasing H2FPEF score displayed higher pulmonary artery pressures, higher left heart filling pressures, lower cardiac index, and more severely impaired aerobic capacity during exercise. In summary, we show that among adults without heart failure, higher H2FPEF score is associated with subclinical abnormalities that resemble those observed in HFpEF. These findings broaden the external validity of the H2FPEF score and suggest that this instrument may help identify patients positioned to benefit from preventive interventions.

The prognostic impact of mechanical atrial dysfunction and atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

This study assessed the prognostic implications of mechanical atrial dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients with different stages of atrial fibrillation (AF) in detail.

METHODS AND RESULTS

HFpEF patients (n = 258) systemically underwent an extensive clinical characterization, including 24-h Holter monitoring and speckle-tracking echocardiography. Patients were categorized according to rhythm and stages of AF: 112 with no history of AF (no AF), 56 with paroxysmal AF (PAF), and 90 with sustained (persistent/permanent) AF (SAF). A progressive decrease in mechanical atrial function was seen: left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) 30.5 ± 10.5% (no AF), 22.3 ± 10.5% (PAF), and 13.9 ± 7.8% (SAF), P < 0.001. Independent predictors for lower LASr values were AF, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher N-terminal-pro hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, left atrial volume index, and relative wall thickness, lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain, and echocardiographic signs of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. LASr was an independent predictor of adverse outcome (hazard ratio per 1% decrease =1.049, 95% confidence interval 1.014-1.085, P = 0.006), whereas AF was not when the multivariable model included LASr. Moreover, LASr mediated the adverse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical atrial dysfunction has a possible greater prognostic role in HFpEF compared to AF status alone. Mechanical atrial dysfunction is a predictor of adverse outcome independently of AF presence or stage, and may be an underlying mechanism (mediator) for the worse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF. This may suggest mechanical atrial dysfunction plays a crucial role in disease progression in HFpEF patients with AF, and possibly also in HFpEF patients without AF.

Prognostic impact of left atrial function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in sinus rhythm vs. persistent atrial fibrillation

Aims

We sought to determine the prognostic impact of left atrial (LA) size and function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in sinus rhythm (SR) vs. atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods and results

We enrolled consecutive HFpEF patients and assessed indexed LA volumes and emptying fractions (LA‐EF) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, all patients underwent right and left heart catheterization, 6 min walk test, and N‐terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide evaluation. We prospectively followed patients and used Cox regression models to determine the association of LA size and function with a composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. A total of 188 patients (71% female patients, 70 ± 8 years old) were included of whom 92 (49%) were in persistent AF. Sixty‐five patients reached the combined endpoint during a follow‐up of 31 (9–57) months. Multivariate Cox regression adjusted for established risk factors revealed that LA‐EF was significantly associated with outcome in patients in SR [adjusted hazard ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval (1.32–3.47) per 1‐SD decline, P = 0.002]. In persistent AF, no LA imaging parameter was related to outcome. By receiver operating characteristic and restricted cubic spline analyses, we identified an LA‐EF ≥ 40% as best indicator for favourable outcomes in patients with HFpEF and SR. Persistent AF carried a similar risk for adverse outcome compared with impaired LA‐EF (<40%) in SR (log‐rank, P = 0.340).

Conclusions

In HFpEF patients in SR, impaired LA‐EF is independently associated with worse cardiovascular outcome, which is similar to persistent AF. In persistent AF, LA parameters lose their prognostic ability.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: An alternative paradigm to explain the clinical implications of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with exercise intolerance, stroke, and all-cause mortality. However, whether this can be solely attributable to the arrhythmia itself or alternative mechanisms remains controversial. Heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) commonly coexists with AF and may contribute to the poor outcomes associated with AF. Indeed, several invasive hemodynamic studies have confirmed that patients with AF are at increased risk of underlying HFpEF and that the presence of HFpEF may have important prognostic implications in these patients.

Mechanistically, AF and HFpEF are closely linked. Both conditions are driven by the presence of common cardiovascular risk factors and are associated with left atrial (LA) myopathy, characterized by mechanical and electrical dysfunction. Progressive worsening of this left atrial (LA) myopathy is associated with both increased AF burden and worsening HFpEF. In addition, there is growing evidence to suggest that worsening LA myopathy is associated with poorer outcomes in both conditions and that reversal of the LA myopathy could improve outcomes. In this review article, we will present the epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence underlying the common coexistence of AF and HFpEF, discuss the importance of a progressive LA myopathy in the pathogenesis of both conditions, and review the evidence from important invasive hemodynamic studies. Finally, we will review the prognostic implications of HFpEF in patients with AF and discuss the relative merits of AF burden reduction vs HFpEF reduction in improving outcomes of patients with AF and HFpEF.