Clinical outcomes with digoxin vs. beta-blocker for heart rate control in permanent atrial fibrillation with heart failure

Is there any difference in the therapeutic effects of Levosimendan on advanced HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation?

Patients with advanced heart failure have a high incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and develop into heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and require higher doses of inotropes. However, it is uncertain about the differences in the effects of levosimendan in HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm or AF. A total of 63 advanced HFrEF subjects (ejection fraction < 40%) were divided into sinus rhythm (SR, n = 34) and atrial fibrillation (AF, n = 29) cohorts. All patients received six cycles of intermittent repeated levosimendan infusion. After 3 months of treatment, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), estimated glomerular filtration rate, resting heart rate (rHR), creatinine, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end diastolic diameter and blood pressure body weight, NYHA classification were measured. After completing the course of treatment, LVEF, BNP, and rHR were significantly decreased (p < 0.0.5), and no significant differences between the two groups were observed (p > 0.05). The NYHA classification improved in the SR group but not in the AF group. There was no significant difference between patients with different rHRs (≤70 bpm vs. >70 bpm) in the SR group (p > 0.05) or in the AF group (rHR ≤ 90 bpm vs. rHR >90 bpm) (p > 0.05). This study showed no difference in the therapeutic effect of intermittent repeated levosimendan infusion on advanced HFrEF with different heart rhythms (SR or AF); Advanced HFrEF patients receive levosimendan treatment without taking the inference of heart rhythm.

Use of Diltiazem in Chronic Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Case-Control Study

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a multifaceted disease requiring personalised treatment. The aim of our study was to explore the prognostic impact of a patient-specific therapy (PT) for rate control, including the use of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDDC) in patients with heart failure (HF) or in combination with beta-blockers (BB), compared to standard rate control therapy (ST), as defined by previous ESC guidelines. This is a single-centre prospective observational registry on AF patients who were followed by our University Hospital. We included 1112 patients on an exclusive rate control treatment. The PT group consisted of 125 (11.2%) patients, 93/125 (74.4%) of whom were prescribed BB + NDCC (±digoxin), while 85/125 (68.0%) were HF patients who were prescribed NDCC, which was diltiazem in all cases. The patients treated with a PT showed no difference in one-year overall survival compared to those with an ST. Notably, the patients with HF in ST had a worse prognosis (p < 0.001). To better define this finding, we performed three sensitivity analyses by matching each patient in the PT subgroups with three subjects from the ST cohort, showing an improved one-year survival of the HF patients treated with PT (p = 0.039). Our results suggest a potential outcome benefit of NDCC for rate control in AF patients, either alone or in combination with BB and in selected patients with HF.