Impact of Heart Failure Type on Thromboembolic and Bleeding Risk in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Oral Anticoagulation

Systematic review and meta-analysis of stroke and thromboembolism risk in atrial fibrillation with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction heart failure

BACKGROUND

Stroke and thromboembolism (TE) are significant complications in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). The impact of ejection fraction status on these risks remains unclear. This study aims to compare the risk of stroke and TE in patients with AF and HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction.

METHODS

Literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was done for studies in adult (20 years or more) population of AF patients. Included studies had reported on the incidences of stroke and/or TE in patients with AF and associated HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, and studies that were based on secondary analysis of data from a trial were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Exploratory analysis was conducted based on the different cut-offs used to define HFrEF and HFpEF.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were analyzed. In the overall analysis, HFrEF in AF patients was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stroke and systemic TE (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.96; n = 20, I2 = 86.6%), compared to HFpEF. However, most studies showed comparable risk of stroke among the two groups of patients except for two studies that had documented significantly reduced risk. Upon doing the sensitivity analysis by excluding these two studies, we found similar risk among the two group of subjects and with no heterogeneity (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.03; n = 18, I2 = 0.0%). Exploratory analysis also showed that the risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism was similar between those with HFpEF and HFrEF.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that there is no significantly different risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in cases of AF with associated HFpEF or HFrEF. The finding does not support integration of left ventricular ejection fraction into stroke risk assessments.

Factors associated with disease progression in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure anticoagulated with rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) have a high risk of thromboembolism and other outcomes and anticoagulation is recommended.

HYPOTHESIS

This study was aimed to explore the risk factors associated with HF worsening in patients with AF and HF taking rivaroxaban in Spain.

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective, observational study that included adults with AF and chronic HF, receiving rivaroxaban ≥4 months before entering. HF worsening was defined as first hospitalization or emergency visit because of HF exacerbation.

RESULTS

A total of 672 patients from 71 Spanish centers were recruited, of whom 658 (97.9%) were included in the safety analysis and 552 (82.1%) in the per protocol analysis. At baseline, mean age was 73.7 ± 10.9 years, 64.9% were male, CHA2 DS2 -VASc was 4.1 ± 1.5, HAS-BLED was 1.6 ± 0.9% and 51.3% had HF with preserved ejection fraction. After 24 months of follow-up, 24.9% of patients developed HF worsening, 11.6% died, 2.9% had a thromboembolic event, 3.1% a major bleeding, 0.5% an intracranial bleeding and no patient had a fatal hemorrhage. Older age, the history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the previous use of vitamin K antagonists, and restrictive or infiltrative cardiomyopathies, were independently associated with HF worsening. Only 6.9% of patients permanently discontinued rivaroxaban treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one out of four patients with HF and AF treated with rivaroxaban developed a HF worsening episode after 2 years of follow-up. The identification of those factors that increase the risk of HF worsening could be helpful in the comprehensive management of this population.

Adverse Events Requiring Hospitalization Following Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with versus without Systolic Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in individuals with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF), particularly concerning the occurrence of post-procedural adverse events necessitating hospitalization, including anticoagulant-associated major bleeding, still lack conclusive determination.

METHODS

Data from patients with HF and AF who underwent catheter ablation for AF between 2019 and 2022 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. All participants were divided into an EF < 50% group or an EF ≥ 50% group according to their baseline left ventricular EF. The composite incidence of the clinical events following catheter ablation was compared between the two groups: (1) all-cause death, (2) HF hospitalization, (3) stroke or systemic embolism, and (4) major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (75 years old, 68 male) were included. Of them, 62 (50.8%) patients had an EF ≥ 50%. EF ≥ 50% was an independent predictor of the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio 6.07, 95% confidence interval 1.37-26.99, p = 0.018). The incidences of each adverse event were not significantly different between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of major bleeding in the EF ≥ 50% group (12.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF coupled with AF, the incidence of adverse events following AF ablation proved notably elevated in patients with EF ≥ 50% in contrast to their counterparts with EF < 50%. This disparity primarily stems from a heightened occurrence of major bleeding within the EF ≥ 50% cohort. The strategy to reduce adverse events, especially in patients with EF ≥ 50%, remains the next concern.

Prognostic Implication of Platelet Reactivity According to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Status in Patients Treated With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Analysis of the PTRG-DES Consortium

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated.

METHODS

From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3-5.

RESULTS

A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39-2.78). The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group, P < 0.01, 95% CI 2.51-3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group.

CONCLUSION

LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Evaluation of Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Therapeutic Characteristics, and Prognostic Outcomes of Coexisting Heart Failure among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib) Study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice. Heart failure (HF) can occur concurrently with AF.

AIM

We compared different demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic characteristics between patients with AF+HF and patients with AF only. Furthermore, we explored whether concurrent HF independently predicts several outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE), major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comparisons between the AF+HF and the AF-only group were carried out. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were constructed for each outcome to assess whether HF was predictive of any of them while controlling for possible confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 2020 patients were included in this study: 481 had AF+HF; 1539 had AF only. AF+HF patients were older, more commonly males, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease (p≤0.05). Furthermore, AF+HF patients more commonly had pulmonary hypertension and low ejection fraction (p≤0.001). Finally, HF was independently predictive of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.17, 95% CI (1.66-2.85) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.37, 95% CI (1.68-3.36).

CONCLUSION

Coexisting AF+HF was associated with a more labile and higher-risk population among Jordanian patients. Furthermore, coexisting HF independently predicted higher all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Efforts should be made to efficiently identify such cases early and treat them aggressively.

Predictive value of von Willebrand factor for venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation after anticoagulant therapy

BACKGROUND

We investigated the value of von Willebrand factor (vWF) in predicting venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation after anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

Totally, 126 patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation who were treated with anticoagulant therapy and 60 healthy individuals were enrolled. One year after anticoagulant therapy, venous thrombosis occurred in 19 patients. Clinical data of patients were collected. The plasma vWF activity was detected and compared. The logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the influencing factors of vWF. ROC curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of plasma vWF.

RESULTS

Plasma vWF activity was significantly higher in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation than control subjects (P < 0.01). The vWF activity in patients with venous thrombosis was significantly higher than that in patients without venous thrombosis (P < 0.01). ROC curve analysis showed that the cut-off value of vWF activity for venous thrombosis within one year after anticoagulant therapy was 267.5%, and the AUC was 0.742 (95% CI: 0.764-0.921, P < 0.05). The sensitivity was 80.0%, and the specificity was 63.6%. Factors of diabetes, myocardial ischemia, old myocardial infarction, and lower extremity atherosclerosis, but not sex, age, coronary heart disease, hypertension, and cardiac function, had significant effect on vWF activity (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that vWF activity was significantly related with atherosclerosis of lower limbs and old myocardial infarction, but not significantly related with diabetes and myocardial ischemia. The risk of venous thrombosis in patients with vWF activity greater than 267.5% was 10.667 times higher than that in patients with vWF activity less than 267.5% (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The vWF activity greater than 267.5% has clinical predictive value for the risk of lower extremity venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation within 1 year of anticoagulant therapy.

Prognostic Significance of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Preserved, Mid-Range, and Reduced Ejection Fraction Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Data from the NOAFCAMI-SH Registry

Purpose

The prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) among different heart failure (HF) subtypes including HF with preserved (HFpEF, ejection fraction [EF] ≥50%), mid-range (HFmrEF, EF 40%~49%), and reduced (HFrEF, EF <40%) EF following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the incidence and prognostic implication of post-MI NOAF across HF subtypes.

Patients and Methods

We included 1413 patients with post-MI HF (743 with HFpEF, 342 with HFmrEF and 328 with HFrEF) between February 2014 and March 2018. NOAF was considered as patients without a preexisting AF who developed AF during the AMI hospitalization. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

Results

Of 1413 patients (mean age 66.8 ± 12.6 years, 72.9% men) analyzed, 200 (14.2%) developed post-MI NOAF. Patients with HFrEF were more likely to experience NOAF compared to those with HFmrEF or HFrEF (18.9%, 13.7% and 12.2% in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively; p for trend = 0.006). During a median follow-up of 28.5 months, 192 patients died (70 with HFrEF, 35 with HFmrEF and 87 with HFpEF) and 195 patients experienced HF rehospitalization (79 with HFrEF, 37 with HFmrEF and 79 with HFpEF). After multivariable adjustment, NOAF was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-3.12) only in the HFrEF group compared to sinus rhythm (SR), whereas an increased risk of HF rehospitalization was found in all HF subtypes, particularly in HFmrEF (HR: 5.08, 95% CI: 2.29-11.25) and HFpEF (HR: 2.83 95% CI: 1.64-4.90).

Conclusion

In patients with post-MI HF, NOAF carried a worse prognosis for all-cause death in the HFrEF group and for HF rehospitalization in all HF subtypes.

Frequency, Trend, Predictors, and Impact of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation Hospitalizations

Anticoagulation alone or in combination with other treatment strategies are implemented to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication of oral anticoagulation with a prevalence of 1% to 3% in patients on long term oral anticoagulation. We analyzed the national inpatient sample database from the year 2005 to 2015 to report evidence on the frequency, trends, predictors, clinical outcomes, and economic burden of GIB among AF hospitalizations. A total of 34,260,000 AF hospitalizations without GIB and 1,846,259 hospitalizations with GIB (5.39%) were included. The trend of AF hospitalizations with GIB per 100 AF hospitalizations remained stable from the year 2005 to 2015 (p value = 0.0562). AF hospitalizations with GIB had a higher frequency of congestive heart failure, long term kidney disease, long term liver disease, anemia, and alcohol abuse compared with AF hospitalizations without GIB. AF hospitalizations with GIB had a higher odds of in-hospital mortality (Odds ratio (OR) 1.47; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.46 to 1.48, p-value <0.0001), mechanical ventilation (OR 1.69; 95% CI: 1.68 to 1.70, p-value <0.0001), and blood transfusion (OR 7.2; 95% CI: 7.17 to 7.22, P-value <0.0001) compared with AF hospitalizations without GIB. AF hospitalizations with GIB had a lower odds of stroke (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.52, p-value <0.0001) compared with AF hospitalizations without GIB. Further, AF hospitalizations with GIB had a higher median length of stay and cost of hospitalization compared with AF hospitalizations without GIB. In conclusion, the frequency of GIB is 5.4% in AF hospitalizations and the frequency of GIB remained stable in the last decade as shown in this analysis. When GIB occurs, it is associated with higher resource utilization. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap highlighting national temporal trends of GIB and associated outcomes in AF hospitalizations.

Optimizing indices of AF susceptibility and burden to evaluate AF severity, risk and outcomes

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has heterogeneous patterns of presentation concerning symptoms, duration of episodes, AF burden, and the tendency to progress towards the terminal step of permanent AF. AF is associated with a risk of stroke/thromboembolism traditionally considered dependent on patient-level risk factors rather than AF type, AF burden, or other characterizations. However, the time spent in AF appears related to an incremental risk of stroke, as suggested by the higher risk of stroke in patients with clinical AF vs. subclinical episodes and in patients with non-paroxysmal AF vs. paroxysmal AF. In patients with device-detected atrial tachyarrhythmias, AF burden is a dynamic process with potential transitions from a lower to a higher maximum daily arrhythmia burden, thus justifying monitoring its temporal evolution. In clinical terms, the appearance of the first episode of AF, the characterization of the arrhythmia in a specific AF type, the progression of AF, and the response to rhythm control therapies, as well as the clinical outcomes, are all conditioned by underlying heart disease, risk factors, and comorbidities. Improved understanding is needed on how to monitor and modulate the effect of factors that condition AF susceptibility and modulate AF-associated outcomes. The increasing use of wearables and apps in practice and clinical research may be useful to predict and quantify AF burden and assess AF susceptibility at the individual patient level. This may help us reveal why AF stops and starts again, or why AF episodes, or burden, cluster. Additionally, whether the distribution of burden is associated with variations in the propensity to thrombosis or other clinical adverse events. Combining the improved methods for data analysis, clinical and translational science could be the basis for the early identification of the subset of patients at risk of progressing to a longer duration/higher burden of AF and the associated adverse outcomes.

Stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure according to heart failure type

Aims

This study aimed to elucidate the risk for stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) according to HF type.

Methods and results

A total of 10 780 patients with atrial fibrillation were enrolled in a multicentre prospective registry and divided according to HF type: no‐HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF), HF with mid‐range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). Each group included 237 age‐matched and sex‐matched patients (age, 69.0 ± 10.3 years; men, 69.6%). The baseline characteristics, cumulative incidence, and hazard ratios for stroke/SE and major bleeding were compared across the groups. Patients with HF accounted for 10.3% of the total population; HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF represented 43.7%, 23.6%, and 32.7% of the patients with HF, respectively. The CHA₂DS₂‐VASc score was significantly higher in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF groups than in the no‐HF group. The annual stroke/SE incidence rates were 2.8%, 0.7%, 1.1%, and 0.9% in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF, and no‐HF groups, respectively. The cumulative incidence of stroke/SE was significantly highest in the HFpEF group at 22.8 ± 10.0 months (P = 0.020). The stroke/SE risk was higher in the HFpEF group than in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups (hazard ratio, 3.192; 95% confidence interval, 1.039–9.810; P = 0.043). E/e' value was an independent risk factor for stroke/SE. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major bleeding across the groups.

Conclusions

The stroke/SE risk was the highest in the HFpEF group and comparable between the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups.

Decreased left atrial appendage emptying velocity as a link between atrial fibrillation type, heart failure and older age and the risk of left atrial thrombus in atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Decreased left atrial appendage emptying velocity (LAAV) is a known predictor of LAA thrombus in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of our study was to identify which of the clinical risk factors for LAA thrombus are associated with decreased LAAV.

METHODS

The study included 1476 consecutive AF patients who underwent transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) before AF direct current cardioversion or ablation in two high-reference cardiology departments. Patients were divided into two groups: 71 (4.8%) patients with LAAV < 20 cm/s and 1405 patients (95%) with LAAV ≥ 20 cm/s.

RESULTS

Compared with patients with LAAV ≥ 20 cm/s, those with decreased LAAV were older, more often had non-paroxysmal AF, were burdened with more concomitant diseases (including hypertension, diabetes, vascular disease, and heart failure [HF]) with higher median CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], P < .0001), and had lower glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Prevalence of LAA thrombus was higher in patients with decreased LAAV compared with those with LAAV ≥ 20cm/s (20% vs 4.6%, P < .0001). In patients with decreased LAAV, there was no difference in the frequency of LAA thrombus between those treated with VKA and those receiving NOAC, while in patients with LAAV ≥ 20 cm/s a trend was observed towards a benefit with NOAC. In multivariate logistic regression, non-paroxysmal AF, HF and age ≥ 65 years predicted both LAAV < 20 cm/s and LAA thrombus, while GFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² predicted only the presence of LAA thrombus.

CONCLUSION

One in five AF patients with decreased LAAV had LAA thrombus, regardless of the type of OAC. Non-paroxysmal AF, HF and age ≥ 65 years might increase LAA thrombus risk via reduced LAAV.

Outcomes of incident atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction: A community-based study

INTRODUCTION

The best management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Patients with incident AF occurring between 2000 and 2014 with a prior or concurrent HF were included. Patients with LVEF ≥ 50% were designated as HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those with LVEF < 50% were designated as HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Rhythm control in the first year after AF diagnosis was defined as prescriptions for an antiarrhythmic drug, catheter ablation, or maze procedure. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Of 859 patients (age, 77.2 ± 12.1 years; 49.2%, female), 447 had HFpEF-AF, and 412 had HFrEF-AF. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10-year mortality, 83% vs 79%; p = .54) or secondary endpoints between the HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF, respectively. Compared with the rate control strategy, rhythm control in HFpEF-AF patients (n = 40, 15.9%) offered no survival benefits (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; p = .16), whereas rhythm control in HFrEF-AF patients (n = 52, 22.5%) decrease cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.86; p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF had similar poor prognoses. Rhythm control strategy was seldom adopted in community care in patients with HF and AF. A rhythm control strategy may provide survival benefit for patients with HFrEF-AF and the benefit of rhythm control in patients with HFpEF-AF warrants further study.

Characteristics of Atrial Fibrillation Patients Suffering Esophageal Injury Caused by Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

The close proximity of esophagus to the left atrial posterior wall predisposes esophagus to thermal injury during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). In this retrospective study, we aimed to investigate risk factors of esophageal injury (EI) caused by catheter ablation for AF. Patients who underwent first-time AF ablation from July 2013 to June 2018 were included. The esophagus was visualized by oral soluble contrast during ablation for all patients and a subset of patients were selected to undergo endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to estimate EI post ablation. Degree of EI was categorized as Kansas City classification: type 1: erythema; type 2: ulcers (2a: superficial ulcers; 2b: deep ulcers); type 3: perforation (3a: perforation without communication with the atria; 3b: atrioesophageal fistula [AEF]). Of 3,852 patients, 236 patients (61.5 ± 9.7 years; male, 69%) received EUS (EUS group) and 3616 (63.2 ± 10.9 years; male, 61.1%) without EUS (No-EUS group). In EUS group, EI occurred in 63 patients (type 1 EI in 35 and type 2 EI in 28), and no type 3 EI was observed during follow up. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, an overlap between the ablation lesion and esophagus was an independent predictor of EI (odds ratio, 21.2; 95% CI: 6.23–72.0; P < 0.001). In No-EUS group, esophagopericardial fistula (EPF; n = 3,0.08%) or AEF (n = 2,0.06%) was diagnosed 4–37 days after ablation. In 3 EPF patients, 2 completely recovered with conservative management and 1 died. Two AEF patients died. Ablation at the vicinity of the esophagus predicts risk of EI. EUS post ablation may prevent the progression of EI and should be considered in management of EI. It remains challenging to identify patients with high risk of EI.

Stroke and Systemic Embolism and Other Adverse Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (from the COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation [CODE-AF])

It is unknown whether heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) carry a similar risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and other outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). A prospective, multicenter outpatient registry with echocardiographic data which enrolled 10,589 patients from June 2016 to May 2019 was analyzed. In this registry, 935 (8.8%) patients had HF, and the proportions of patients with HFpEF and HFrEF were 43.2% and 56.8%, respectively. During follow-up over 1.33 years, 11 (2.07 per 100 person-years [PYR]) and 5 (0.76 per 100 PYR) patients had stroke/SE in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups, respectively, whereas 102 patients (0.84 per 100 PYR) had these sequelae in the no-HF group. The HFpEF group had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of stroke/SE (p = 0.004) and risk of stroke/SE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19 to 4.18) than the no-HF group. The risk of stroke/SE in the HFpEF group compared with that in the no-HF group was consistently increased even in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy (adjusted HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.96). There was a correlation between larger left atrial size and risk of stroke/SE (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.29), but not between reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and this risk. In conclusion, these results suggest that strict oral anticoagulation therapy helps reduce the risk of stroke/SE in patients with nonvalvular AF and HFpEF, especially in those with a larger left atrial size.

Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Are at Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

AIMS

Two thirds of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) to prevent thromboembolic events. However, evidence regarding the safety of OAC in HFpEF is limited. Therefore, our aim was to describe bleeding events and to find predictors of bleeding in a large HFpEF cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We recorded bleeding events in a prospective HFpEF cohort. Out of 328 patients (median age 71 years (interquartile range (IQR) 67-77)), 64.6% (n = 212) were treated with OAC. Of those, 65.1% (n = 138) received vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA) and 34.9% (n = 72) non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). During a median follow-up time of 42 (IQR 17-63) months, a total of 54 bleeding events occurred. Patients on OAC experienced more bleeding events (n = 49 (23.1%) versus n = 5 (4.3%), p < 0.001). Major drivers of events were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n = 18 (36.7%)]. HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) score (hazard ratios (HR) of 2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-2.79, p < 0.001)) was the strongest independent predictor for overall bleeding. In the subgroup of GI bleeding, mean right atrial pressure (mRAP: HR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.03-1.25, p = 0.013)) and HAS-BLED score (HR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.15-2.64, p = 0.009)] remained significantly associatiated with bleeding events after adjustment. mRAP provided additional prognostic value beyond the HAS-BLED score with an improvement from 0.63 to 0.71 (95% CI 0.58-0.84, p for comparison 0.032), by C-statistic. This additional prognostic value was confirmed by significant improvements in net reclassification index (61.3%, p = 0.019) and integrated discrimination improvement (3.4%, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

OAC-treated HFpEF patients are at high risk of GI bleeding. High mRAP as an indicator of advanced stage of disease was predictive for GI bleeding events and provided additional risk stratification information beyond that obtained by HAS-BLED score.