Meta-Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Prevalence and outcomes of heart failure phenotypes in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure (HF). Real-world data about long-term outcomes and rhythm control interventions use in AF patients with and without HF remain scarce.

METHODS

AF patients from two prospective, multicentre studies were classified based on the HF status at baseline into: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF), and no HF. The prespecified primary outcome was risk of HF hospitalisation. Other outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular events, AF progression, and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 patients with AF were analysed (mean age 69.6 years, women 27.4%) with a median follow-up of 5.98 years. Patients with HFpEF (n = 126) had a 2.69-fold and patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 308) had a 2.12-fold increased risk of HF hospitalisation compared to patients without HF (n = 831, p < 0.001). Similar results applied for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The risk for AF progression was higher for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF/HFmrEF (6.30 and 6.79 per 100 patient-years, respectively) compared to patients without HF (4.20). The use of rhythm control strategies during follow-up was least in the HFpEF population (4.56 per 100 patient-years) compared to 7.74 in HFrEF/HFmrEF and 8.03 in patients with no HF. With regards to quality of life over time, this was worst among HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of HFpEF among patients with AF carried a high risk of HF hospitalisations and AF progression, and worse quality of life. Rhythm control interventions were rarely offered to HFpEF patients. These results uncover an unmet need for enhanced therapeutic interventions in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: The Role of Inflammation

Heart failure (HF) is a debilitating clinical syndrome affecting 64.3 million patients worldwide. More than 50% of HF cases are attributed to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), an entity growing in prevalence and mortality. Although recent breakthroughs reveal the prognostic benefits of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HFpEF, there is still a lack of effective pharmacological therapy available. This highlights a major gap in medical knowledge that must be addressed. Current evidence attributes HFpEF pathogenesis to an interplay between cardiometabolic comorbidities, inflammation, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) activation, leading to cardiac remodelling and diastolic dysfunction. However, conventional RAAS blockade has demonstrated limited benefits in HFpEF, which emphasises that alternative therapeutic targets should be explored. Presently, there is limited literature examining the use of anti-inflammatory HFpEF therapies despite growing evidence supporting its importance in disease progression. Hence, this review aims to explore current perspectives on HFpEF pathogenesis, including the importance of inflammation-driven cardiac remodelling and the therapeutic potential of anti-inflammatory therapies.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure With Reduced vs Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Catheter ablation is associated with reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in select patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the benefit in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate whether catheter ablation for AF is associated with reduced HF-related outcomes according to HF phenotype.

Data Source

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted among studies published from inception to September 2023.

Study Selection

Parallel-group randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with conventional rate or rhythm control therapies in patients with HF, New York Heart Association functional class II or greater, and a history of paroxysmal or persistent AF were included. Pairs of independent reviewers screened 7531 titles and abstracts, of which 12 RCTs and 4 substudies met selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Interaction P values were used to test for subgroup differences.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HF events, defined as HF hospitalization, clinically significant worsening of HF, or unscheduled visits to a clinician for treatment intensification. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs with 2465 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.7] years; 658 females [26.7%]) were included; there were 1552 participants with HFrEF and 913 participants with HFpEF. Compared with conventional rate or rhythm control, catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of HF events in HFrEF (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), while there was no benefit in patients with HFpEF (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32) (P for interaction = .03). Catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared with conventional therapies in HFrEF (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70) but a differential association was not detected in HFpEF (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) (P for interaction = .12). Similarly, no difference in the association of catheter ablation with all-cause mortality was found between HFrEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86) and HFpEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.30) groups (P for interaction = .39).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that catheter ablation for AF was associated with reduced risk of HF events in patients with HFrEF but had limited or no benefit in HFpEF. Results from ongoing trials may further elucidate the role of catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF.

Predicting impaired cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in patients with atrial fibrillation using a simple echocardiographic marker

BACKGROUND

Exercise intolerance is a common symptom associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, echocardiographic markers that can predict impaired exercise capacity are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the association between echocardiographic parameters and exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with AF.

METHODS

This single-center prospective study enrolled patients with AF who underwent echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing to evaluate exercise capacity at a tertiary center for AF management from 2020 to 2022. Patients with valvular heart disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, or documented cardiomyopathy were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 188 patients, 134 (71.2%) exhibited impaired exercise capacity (peak oxygen consumption ≤85%), including 4 (2.1%) having poor exercise capacity (peak oxygen consumption <50%). Echocardiographic findings revealed that these patients had an enlarged left atrial end-systolic diameter (LA); smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD); and increased relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, and LA/LVEDD and E/e' ratios. In addition, they exhibited lower peak systolic velocity of the mitral annulus and LA reservoir strain. In the multivariate regression model, LA/LVEDD remained the only significant echocardiographic parameter after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index (P = .020). This significance persisted even after incorporation of heart rate reserve, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and beta-blocker use into the model.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AF, LA/LVEDD is strongly associated with exercise capacity. Further follow-up and validation are necessary to clarify its clinical implications in patient care.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. Contemporary classification of HF categorizes it into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aggregate data comparing the risk profile of AF between these three HF categories are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining any significant differences in AF-associated all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality (CV), and stroke between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until February 28, 2023. Data were combined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies comprising 248 323 patients were retained: HFrEF 123 331 (49.7%), HFmrEF 40 995 (16.5%), and HFpEF 83 997 (33.8%). Pooled baseline AF prevalence was 36% total population, 30% HFrEF, 36% HFmrEF, and 42% HFpEF. AF was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in the total population with pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.21), HFmrEF (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05-1.50) and HFpEF (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09-1.24), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.93-1.14). AF was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalizations in the total population (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14-1.46), HFmrEF (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.20-2.24), and HFpEF (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.83), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87-1.18). AF was only associated with CV in the HFpEF subcategory but was associated with stroke in all three HF subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

AF appears to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization in HFmrEF and HFpEF. With these findings, the paucity of data and treatment guidelines on AF in the HFmrEF subgroup becomes even more significant and warrant further investigations.

Coagulation Disorders and Thrombotic Complications in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with multiple cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors which increase the risk of thrombotic complications, such as atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, arterial hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Subsequently, thromboembolic risk stratification in this population poses a great challenge. Since date from the large randomized clinical trials mostly include both patients with truly preserved EF, and those with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, there is an unmet need to characterize the patients with truly preserved EF. Considering the significant evidence gap in this area, we sought to describe the coagulation disorders and thrombotic complications in patients with HFpEF and discuss the specific thromboembolic risk factors in patients with HFpEF, with the goal to tailor risk stratification to an individual patient.

A review of the impact, pathophysiology, and management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have increased mortality and increased risk of stroke. Due to the heterogeneous nature of both disease processes, it is difficult to ascertain whether the diagnosis and progression of AF is the cause of deterioration or if it is a symptom of worsening heart failure. This presents physicians with a clinical conundrum of whether optimizing their heart failure will decrease the overall AF burden or if restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary to optimize patients with HFpEF. In this paper, we will review the impact of AF in patients with HFpEF, the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of HFpEF and AF, and the management of these patients. As HFpEF and AF become more prevalent, managing these disease processes needs standardization to improve outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay between AF and HFpEF to help determine the best management strategy.

Acute heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and myocardial infarction: a multi-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little research has been done on ischemic outcomes related to left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2001 and 2021 using the Chang Gung Research Database. ADHF Patients discharged from hospitals between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Cardiovascular (CV) mortality and heart failure (HF) rehospitalization are the primary outcome components, along with all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 12,852 ADHF patients were identified, of whom 2,222 (17.3%) had HFmrEF, the mean (SD) age was 68.5 (14.6) years, and 1,327 (59.7%) were males. In comparison with HFrEF and HFpEF patients, HFmrEF patients had a significant phenotype comorbid with diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease. Patients with HFmrEF were more likely to experience renal failure, dialysis, and replacement. Both HFmrEF and HFrEF had similar rates of cardioversion and coronary interventions. There was an intermediate clinical outcome between HFpEF and HFrEF, but HFmrEF had the highest rate of AMI (HFpEF, 9.3%; HFmrEF, 13.6%; HFrEF, 9.9%). The AMI rates in HFmrEF were higher than those in HFpEF (AHR, 1.15; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.99 to 1.32) but not in HFrEF (AHR, 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.87 to 1.13).

CONCLUSION

Acute decompression in patients with HFmrEF increases the risk of myocardial infarction. The relationship between HFmrEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy, as well as optimal anti-ischemic treatment, requires further research on a large scale.

The "Obesity Paradox" in Patients With HFpEF With or Without Comorbid Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Overweight and mildly obese individuals have a lower risk of death than their normal-weight counterparts; this phenomenon is termed "obesity paradox." Whether this "obesity paradox" exists in patients with heart failure (HF) or can be modified by comorbidities is still controversial. Our current study aimed to determine the association of body mass index (BMI) with outcomes with patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with or without coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Patients with HFpEF from the Americas in the TOPCAT trial were categorized into the 3 groups: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m²), and obesity (≥30 kg/m²). The Cox proportional-hazards models were used to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and CIs. Results: We identified 1,749 patients with HFpEF, 42.1% of which had baseline AF. In the total population of HFpEF, both overweight (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42-0.83) and obesity (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.69) were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death. Among patients with HFpEF without AF, overweight (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.95) and obesity (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.98) were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death. In those with AF, obesity (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.95) but not overweight (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.54-1.21) was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause death. Conclusions: The "obesity paradox" assessed by BMI exists in patients with HFpEF regardless of comorbid AF. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00094302.

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 27 prospective studies were included. Patients with HFpEF were older and had a higher proportion of females, hypertension, diabetes, and insufficient neuroendocrine antagonist treatments, while patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease. After more than 1-year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF 9388/25 042 (37.49%) than those with HFrEF 39 333/90 023 (43.69%) and HFpEF 24 828/52 492 (47.30%) (p < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in patients with HFpEF 1130/9904 (11.41%), highest in patients with HFrEF 3419/16 277 (21.07%) mainly coming from HF death and sudden cardiac death, and middle in patients with HFmrEF 699/5171 (13.52%) and the non-cardiovascular mortality was on the contrary. Subgroup analysis showed that in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the all-cause mortality of HFpEF was significantly higher than both HFrEF and HFmrEF (p < .001). HF hospitalization was lowest in patients with HFmrEF 1822/5285 (34.47%), highest in patients with HFrEF 12 607/28 590 (44.10%) and middle in patients with HFpEF 8686/22 763 (38.16%) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was also observed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, while the highest all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates were HFpEF and HFrEF patients, respectively.

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.

Diabetic phenotype and prognosis of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in a real life cohort

Background

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, with several underlying etiologic and pathophysiologic factors. The presence of diabetes might identify an important phenotype, with implications for therapeutic strategies. While diabetes is associated with worse prognosis in HFpEF, the prognostic impact of glycemic control is yet unknown. Hence, we investigated phenotypic differences between diabetic and non-diabetic HFpEF patients (pts), and the prognostic impact of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C).

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 183 pts with HFpEF (78 ± 9 years, 38% men), including 70 (38%) diabetics (type 2 diabetes only). They underwent 2D echocardiography (n = 183), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) (n = 150), and were followed for a combined outcome of all-cause mortality and first HF hospitalization. The prognostic impact of diabetes and glycemic control were determined with Cox proportional hazard models, and illustrated by adjusted Kaplan Meier curves.

Results

Diabetic HFpEF pts were younger (76 ± 9 vs 80 ± 8 years, p = 0.002), more obese (BMI 31 ± 6 vs 27 ± 6 kg/m², p = 0.001) and suffered more frequently from sleep apnea (18% vs 7%, p = 0.032). Atrial fibrillation, however, was more frequent in non-diabetic pts (69% vs 53%, p = 0.028). Although no echocardiographic difference could be detected, CMR analysis revealed a trend towards higher LV mass (66 ± 18 vs 71 ± 14 g/m², p = 0.07) and higher levels of fibrosis (53% vs 36% of patients had ECV by T1 mapping > 33%, p = 0.05) in diabetic patients.

Over 25 ± 12 months, 111 HFpEF pts (63%) reached the combined outcome (24 deaths and 87 HF hospitalizations). Diabetes was a significant predictor of mortality and hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 1.72 [1.1–2.6], p = 0.011, adjusted for age, BMI, NYHA class and renal function). In diabetic patients, lower levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C < 7%) were associated with worse prognosis (HR: 2.07 [1.1–4.0], p = 0.028 adjusted for age, BMI, hemoglobin and NT-proBNP levels).

Conclusion

Our study highlights phenotypic features characterizing diabetic patients with HFpEF. Notably, they are younger and more obese than their non-diabetic counterpart, but suffer less from atrial fibrillation. Although diabetes is a predictor of poor outcome in HFpEF, intensive glycemic control (HbA1C < 7%) in diabetic patients is associated with worse prognosis.