Heart failure subtypes and thromboembolic risk in patients with atrial fibrillation: The PREFER in AF - HF substudy

Sex differences in atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on the impact of sex on the outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We aimed to analyze the association of sex with outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database (NRD) was analyzed from 2016 to 2019 to identify patients ≥ 18 years old with heart failure (HF) undergoing AF ablation. The outcomes of interest included peri-procedural complications, in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and unplanned 1-year readmissions. The final cohort was divided into patients with HFrEF and HFpEF and outcomes were compared between males and females in both cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 23,277 patients with HF underwent AF ablation between 2016 and 2019, of which 14,480 had HFrEF and 8,797 had HFpEF. Among patients with HFrEF, 61.6% were males and 38.4% were females whereas, among patients with HFpEF, 35.4% were males and 64.6% were females. On a multivariable-adjusted analysis, in patients with HFrEF, there was no difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality, peri-procedural complications, or 1-year HF-related/AF-related/all-cause readmissions between males and females. In patients with HFpEF, females had a higher risk 1-year HF-related readmissions (adjusted hazards ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87; p = 0.01), without any difference in the 1-year AF-related/all-cause readmissions, in-hospital mortality, or peri-procedural complications.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that females with HFrEF undergoing AF ablation have similar outcomes whereas females with HFpEF have higher 1-year HF readmissions with no difference in the other outcomes, compared to males.

Association of hypertension burden with stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Introduction

Whether the hypertension burden is associated with stroke incidence is inconclusive. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between hypertension burden and stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods

HFpEF patients from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial were divided into three groups (low, medium, and high risk) according to their hypertension burden values. Higher hypertension burden risk represented the longer duration of hypertension. We evaluated the association of hypertension burden with stroke risk using Fine and Gray's competing risk models.

Results

A total of 3431 HFpEF patients (mean age: 68.5 ± 9.58 years, 51.6% females) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, per 10-point increase in hypertension burden was associated with any stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.21), new-onset stroke (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21), and ischemic stroke (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.17). When hypertension burden was analyzed as a categorical variable, any stroke risk was increased in the medium- (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.40) and high-risk (HR 3.19, 95% CI 2.05-4.97) groups when compared with the low-risk group. For the outcomes of new-onset (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.80-4.74) and ischemic stroke (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.41-4.29), similar results were observed in patients with high-versus low-risk hypertension burden.

Conclusions

Increasing hypertension burden was associated with an increased risk of stroke, suggesting that shortening hypertension duration might appropriately minimize the stroke incidence in HFpEF patients.

Oral anticoagulation in heart failure complicated by atrial fibrillation: A nationwide routine data study

BACKGROUND

This nationwide routine data analysis evaluates if oral anticoagulant (OAC) use in patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) leads to a lower mortality and reduced readmission rate. Superiority of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA), was analyzed for these endpoints.

METHODS

Anonymous data of patients with a health insurance at the Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse and a claims record for hospitalization with the main diagnosis of HF and secondary diagnosis of AF (2017-2019) were included. A hospital stay in the previous year was an exclusion criterion. Mortality and readmission for all-cause and stroke/intracranial bleeding (ICB) were analyzed 91-365 days after the index hospitalization. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of medication on outcome.

RESULTS

180,316 cases were included [81 years (IQR 76-86), 55.6% female, CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 (96.81%)]. In 80.6%, OACs were prescribed (VKA: 21.7%; direct factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI): 60.0%; direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI): 3.4%; with multiple prescriptions per patient included). Mortality rate was 19.1%, readmission rate was 29.9% and stroke/ICB occurred in 1.9%. Risk of death was lower with any OAC (HR 0.77, 95% CI [0.75-0.79]) but without significant differences in OAC type (VKA: HR 0.73, [0.71-0.76]; FXaI: HR 0.77, [0.75-0.78]; DTI: HR 0.71, [0.66-0.77]). The total readmission rate (HR 0.97, [0.94 to 0.99]) and readmission for stroke/ICB (HR 0.71, [0.65-0.77]) was lower with OAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide data confirm a reduction in mortality and readmission rate in HF-AF patients taking OACs, without NOAC superiority.

Outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation with and without heart failure: the ETNA-AF-Europe registry

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a risk factor for major adverse events in atrial fibrillation (AF). Whether this risk persists on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and varies according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is debated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We investigated the relation of HF in the ETNA-AF-Europe registry, a prospective, multicentre, observational study with an overall 4-year follow-up of edoxaban-treated AF patients. We report 2-year follow-up for ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/systemic embolic events (SEE), major bleeding, and mortality. Of the 13 133 patients, 1854 (14.1%) had HF. Left ventricular ejection fraction was available for 82.4% of HF patients and was <40% in 671 (43.9%) and ≥40% in 857 (56.1%). Patients with HF were older, more often men, and had more comorbidities. Annualized event rates (AnERs) of any stroke/SEE were 0.86%/year and 0.67%/year in patients with and without HF. Compared with patients without HF, those with HF also had higher AnERs for major bleeding (1.73%/year vs. 0.86%/year) and all-cause death (8.30%/year vs. 3.17%/year). Multivariate Cox proportional models confirmed HF as a significant predictor of major bleeding [hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-2.26] and all-cause death [HF with LVEF <40% (HR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.95-3.00) and HF with LVEF ≥40% (HR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.45-2.23)] but not of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SEE.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulated patients with HF at baseline featured higher rates of major bleeding and all-cause death, requiring optimized management and novel preventive strategies. NOAC treatment was similarly effective in reducing risk of ischaemic events in patients with or without concomitant HF.

Clinical characteristics and frequency of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: results of a retrospective big data analysis

Aim. To evaluate the clinical characteristics and frequency of prescribed anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) in subjects of the Russian Federation based on a retrospective big data analysis using artificial intelligence technologies.

Material and methods. For retrospective analysis, information was obtained from the Webiomed predictive analytics platform, which includes depersonalized data from electronic health records of outand/ or inpatients in 6 subjects of the Russian Federation, extracted using artificial intelligence technologies. From the database of patients with AF (n=144431), a group of individuals (n=20970) with an established diagnosis of HF and information on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was selected.

Results. Patients with AF and HF (men, 43,7%; age 72,1±13,2 years; LVEF, 58,9±11,0%) had a history of smoking in 36,6% of cases, hypertension — in 86,7%, type 2 diabetes — in 26,6%, gout — in 2,7%, stage III and IV-V chronic kidney disease — in 50,9 and 15,6%, lower limb peripheral arterial disease — in 15,8%. The incidence of ischemic stroke, LV myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism was 8,8, 14,7 and 2,4%, respectively. Anticoagulants, including direct oral ones, were administered to patients with AF and HF in 62,5% and 32,0% of cases, respectively. The frequency of their appointment did not significantly differ depending on LVEF.

Conclusion. Patients with AF and HF are characterized by significant comorbidity, a higher incidence of cardiovascular events compared with the group of individuals with AF without HF, and an unsatisfactory percentage of anticoagulant therapy.

Essen Stroke Risk Score Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Evidence from the TOPCAT trial

BACKGROUND

 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with increased risks of stroke and other adverse outcomes.

AIMS

 This study sought to determine whether the Essen Stroke Risk Score (ESRS) could predict the risks of adjudicated clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial.

METHODS

 We evaluated associations of baseline ESRS with clinical outcomes by using the Cox proportional hazard model with competing risk regression. The diagnostic accuracy of the ESRS was assessed using the C-index and calibration data.

RESULTS

 Of 3,441 HFpEF patients with a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the risk of stroke ranged from 0.32% per year at an ESRS of 1 to 2 points to 1.71% per year at a score of ≥6 points. Each point increase in ESRS was associated with increased risks of primary composite outcome (hazard ratios [HRs] = 1.31; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.23-1.40; C-index = 0.68), stroke (HR = 1.33 [95% CI: 1.16-1.53]; C-index = 0.68), myocardial infarction (HR = 1.60 [95% CI: 1.40-1.83]; C-index = 0.75), HF hospitalization (HR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.20-1.41]; C-index = 0.71), any hospitalization (HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15-1.26; C-index = 0.68), cardiovascular death (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.20-1.44]; C-index = 0.68), and all-cause death (HR = 1.37, [95% CI: 1.28-1.48]; C-index = 0.68). The calibration curves showed that the ESRS had a better agreement between predicted and observed stroke risks compared with the R2CHADS2, CHADS2, or CHA2DS2-VASC stroke scores.

CONCLUSION

 The ESRS had modest discriminatory abilities for predicting stroke as well as other adverse outcomes including myocardial infarction, hospitalization, and death in HFpEF patients. ESRS might have better calibration performance than R2CHADS2, CHADS2, or CHA2DS2-VASC in HFpEF at high risk for stroke.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure and preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Background

Patient prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) is increasing, and anticoagulation for patients from heterogeneous backgrounds with both conditions remains controversial. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in AF patients with HF and preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction.

Methods and results

We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases until January 2022. The primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding, respectively. We abstracted risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and compiled them using a random-effects model. We analyzed data of 266,291 patients from 10 studies. By comparing NOACs with warfarin, patients with AF and HF have reduced the risk of SSE (RR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.76–0.91), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.80–0.91), major bleeding (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.69–0.90), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.46–0.63). Further analyses based on the HF subtypes showed that NOACs reduced the chances of SSE (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.53–0.94) in the HFrEF group and major bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95) in HFmrEF and HFpEF groups. There were no differences regarding SSE (RR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76–1.09) in HFmrEF and HFpEF groups and major bleeding (RR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.79–1.23) in the HFrEF group.

Conclusion

For patients with AF and HF, NOACs have better or similar effectiveness and safety than warfarin, but the stroke prevention superiority of NOACs over warfarin varies in different HF subtypes.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis and systematic review was performed to evaluate the clinical relevance of subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched for eligible randomized and nonrandomized studies until November 2020. Risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated, using a random-effects model. Overall, 25 studies were eligible for the analysis and comprised a total of 11,098 patients. The median incidence of SLT was 6% at a median follow-up of 30 days. Use of intra-annular valves was associated with 2-fold greater risk for the development of SLT compared with use of supra-annular valves. There was no difference in the risk for SLT (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.72-1.29; P = 0.83) between single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), whereas oral anticoagulation (OAC) was associated with a 58% relative risk reduction for SLT (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61; P < 0.00001) compared with SAPT and DAPT. In patients with diagnosed leaflet thrombosis at follow-up, the risk for stroke or transient ischemic attack was increased by 2.6-fold (RR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.60-4.09; P < 0.00001) compared with patients without leaflet thrombosis. In patients diagnosed with SLT, the odds of SLT resolution increased by 99% after switch from antiplatelet agents to OAC (odds ratio: 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00-0.06; P < 0.00001). To summarize, indication-based use of OAC after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with a lower risk for SLT compared with SAPT and DAPT. Switching to OAC seems to be effective for SLT resolution. As SLT increased the odds of stroke or transient ischemic attack in the included population, further studies are needed to investigate whether screening tests for SLT and appropriate antithrombotic therapy improve long-term valve functionality and clinical prognosis.

Cardiovascular Outcome in Patients Treated With SGLT2 Inhibitors for Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are an emerging class of glucose-lowering drugs that have become increasingly relevant for the treatment and prevention of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we aimed to investigate various SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established HF at baseline and focused on the different types of HF.

Methods: An extensive search of PubMed and Web of Science until January 2021 was done. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, applied the selection criteria. This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SGLT2 inhibitors vs. a comparator in patients with HF reporting clinical outcomes were included. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of hospitalization for HF (HHF) or cardiovascular (CV) mortality. All-cause mortality, CV mortality, and HHF were considered as secondary endpoints. Subgroup analyses involving the status of diabetes, type of HF, administered type of SGLT2 inhibitor, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cause of HF, and concomitant medication were performed.

Results: Seventeen RCTs, comprising a total of 20,749 participants, were included (n = 10,848 treated with SGLT2 inhibitors and n = 9,901 treated with a comparator). Treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in a HF population was associated with a 27% relative risk reduction (RRR) of HHF or CV mortality [risk ratio (RR) = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.68–0.78], 32% RRR of HHF (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.62–074), 18% RRR of CV mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.73–0.91), and 17% RRR of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.75–0.91). The effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on the primary endpoint was consistent among the different gliflozines. The effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on the primary endpoint was independent of underlying diabetes mellitus, age, sex, BMI, renal function, and HF type.

Conclusions: SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with improved CV outcomes in patients with HF.

Long-term effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure

AIMS

Randomized trials suggest reductions in all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) rehospitalizations with catheter ablation (CA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF. Whether these results can be replicated in a real-world population with long-term follow-up or varies over time is unknown. We sought to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of CA in reducing the incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, stroke, and major bleeding in AF-HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with AF-HF in Quebec, Canada (2000-2017), CA patients were matched 1:2 to controls on time and frequency of hospitalizations. Confounders were controlled for using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for the presence of cardiac electronic implantable devices and medication use during follow-up, and the effect of time since CA was modelled with B-splines. For non-fatal outcomes, the Lunn-McNeil approach was used to account for the competing risk of death. Among 101 933 AF-HF patients, 451 underwent CA and were matched to 899 controls. Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, CA was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.4 (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.7)], but no difference in stroke or major bleeding. The hazard of HF rehospitalization for CA patients, relative to non-CA patients, varied with time since CA (P = 0.01), with a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until approximately 3 years post-CA.

CONCLUSION

Compared with matched non-CA patients, CA was associated with a long-term reduction in all-cause mortality and a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until 3 years post-CA.

CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA Scores and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) patients have high risks of thromboembolic events regardless of the category of left ventricular ejection fraction. We sought to assess whether the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, and female sex) and ATRIA (anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation) scores could predict clinical outcomes in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in a multicenter, America-based population of 1766 HFpEF patients who were stratified according to their baseline CHA2DS2-VASc or ATRIA scores. The CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA scores were analyzed as a continuous or categorical variable. The outcomes were stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, any hospitalization, and HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

When score was considered as a continuous variable, each point increase in CHA2DS2-VASc was associated with increased risks of stroke (hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.41, C-index = 0.62), HF hospitalization (HR 1.08, 95% CI = 1.01-1.17, C-index = 0.59), and any hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01-1.11, C-index = 0.57) whereas each point increase in ATRIA was associated with increased risks of stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI = 1.01-1.21, C-index = 0.62), all-cause death (HR 1.09, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14, C-index = 0.61), cardiovascular death (HR 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02-1.14, C-index = 0.59), HF hospitalization (HR 1.07, 95% CI = 1.03-1.12, C-index = 0.58), and any hospitalization (HR 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.06, C-index = 0.57). When score was regarded as a categorical variable, compared with controls, CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 4 was associated with increased risks of stroke and hospitalization whereas ATRIA ≥ 8 was associated with increased risks of stroke, death, and hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA scores are associated with risks of adverse outcomes in HFpEF patients. However, the predictive abilities of CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA are modest, and their clinical utility in HFpEF remains to be determined.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT00094302.

Reclassification, Thromboembolic, and Major Bleeding Outcomes Using Different Estimates of Renal Function in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the PREFER-in-AF and PREFER-in-AF Prolongation Registries

BACKGROUND

The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended to determine a renal indication for dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. Nephrology guidelines now recommend the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formulae as more accurate estimates of glomerular filtration rate.

METHODS

We analyzed anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who were enrolled in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Events - European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF). The proportion of patients with dissimilar renal dosing indications was assessed when applying Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, or CKD-EPI. Thromboembolic and major bleeding events at 1 year were compared in patients in whom Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI provided concordant or discordant results around a threshold of 50 mL/minute.

RESULTS

Out of 1288 patients with atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease in whom Cockcroft-Gault suggested a dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban (creatinine clearance ≤50 mL/minutes), 19% and 16% were reclassified to the respective higher doses, and 24% and 23% to the respective lower doses by applying the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae, respectively. In patients potentially receiving a different dose of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban when using CKD-EPI, we observed an excess of thromboembolic events (4.1% versus 0.8%; odds ratio, 5.5 [95% CI, 1.5-20.8]; P=0.01). Major bleeding rates were nonsignificantly different in the discordance versus concordance group (5.7% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 2.2 [95% CI, 0.9-5.6]; P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae suggest a different dosing in up to a quarter of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. This seems to impact hard outcomes.

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.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure: GARFIELD-AF

Aims

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) may coexist and influence each other. However, characteristics, anticoagulant treatment, and outcomes of contemporary AF patients with concurrent HF are ill‐defined. This study analyses characteristics, treatment, and 2 year outcomes in newly diagnosed Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD‐Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD‐AF) patients with vs. without HF.

Methods and results

GARFIELD‐AF is the world's largest observational AF patient study. At enrolment, 11 758 of 52 072 patients (22.6%) had HF; 76.3% were New York Heart Association class II–III. Patients with HF had comparable demographics, blood pressure, and heart rate but more likely had permanent (15.6% vs. 11.9%) or persistent AF (18.9% vs. 13.8%), acute coronary syndromes (16.7% vs. 8.9%), vascular disease (40.8% vs. 20.2%), and moderate‐to‐severe chronic kidney disease (14.6% vs. 9.0%) than those without. Anticoagulant prescription was similar between the two groups. At 2 year follow‐up, patients with HF showed a greater risk of all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91–2.21; P < 0.0001], cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.58–3.29; P < 0.0001), acute coronary syndromes (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02–1.52; P = 0.03), and stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07–1.43; P = 0.0044). Major bleeding rate was comparable (adjusted HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84–1.18; P = 0.968). Among patients without HF at baseline, incidence of new HF was low [0.69 (95% CI, 0.63–0.75) per 100 person‐years], whereas propensity to develop worsening HF was higher in those with HF [1.62 (95% CI, 1.45–1.80) per 100 person‐years].

Conclusions

Patients with AF and HF have a high risk of all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality and stroke/systemic embolism and may develop worsening HF.

Sex-Related Differences in Catheter Ablation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

The coexistence of atrial fibrillation and heart failure significantly increases the risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Sex-related differences in all patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation include the referral of fewer women for catheter ablation (15–25%), older age of women at ablation, and higher risk of post-ablation recurrence of atrial fibrillation. We searched the existing literature for sex-related differences in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation with a focus on heart failure. Randomized controlled trials assessing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in patients with heart failure have demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Within the eight existing randomized controlled trials on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, women composed a small proportion of the study population. Only two studies (CASTLE-AF and AATAC-HF) specifically assessed the effect of gender on outcome and showed no difference in post-ablation outcomes. Registry data-based studies assessing sex-related differences in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in heart failure reveal that women are half as likely as men to undergo ablation. Conflicting data exist on the interaction of gender and heart failure as they may affect peri-ablation and post-ablation long-term outcomes such as atrial fibrillation recurrence or heart failure hospitalizations. In conclusion, existing studies provide insight into the gender-based differences in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation as it pertains to heart failure. Further prospective studies with higher proportions of female participants are required to accurately determine gender-based differences in this population.

CHA2DS2-VASc score performance to predict stroke after acute decompensated heart failure with and without reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

To validate the utility of CHA2DS2-VASc score to predict the annual risk of stroke in patients admitted with acute heart failure, comparing those with preserved ejection fraction (HF-presEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HF-redEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We investigated 2922 patients with known atrial fibrillation who were admitted to the Sheba Medical Center for acute decompensated heart failure (HF). Anticoagulation therapy was prescribed based on CHA2DS2-VASc score or physician's discretion. Subjects were divided into four pre-specified groups based on HF type and median CHA2DS2-VASc score: HF-presEF with CHA2DS2-VASc <5(N = 731), HF-presEF with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥5 (N = 1102), HF-redEF with CHA2DS2-VASc <5 (N = 563), and HF-redEF with CHADS2-VASc ≥5 (N = 526). The primary endpoint was an ischaemic stroke at 1 year. Mean age of the study population was 79 ± 11 years, of whom more than half were women. The median CHA2DS2-VASc score for the entire study population was 5.0 (interquartile range 25-75%: 4-6). Stroke rate for the entire study population was 6.6%. Multivariate Cox regression proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that in both HF-redEF and HF-presEF patients, each one-point increment in CHA2DS2-VASc was associated with a corresponding 28% increase in stroke risk (P < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis revealed that in the same CHADS2-VASc category (high vs. low), no difference was found between HF-redEF and HF-presEF with regards to the risk of stroke.

CONCLUSION

Our key finding is that the CHA2DS2-VASc score is a valid and powerful predictor of subsequent stroke among patients admitted with acute heart failure decompensation regardless of heart failure type.

Population-Level Sex Differences and Predictors for Treatment With Catheter Ablation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

Background

Current guidelines are relatively general regarding the type of patient with heart failure (HF) who should be considered for catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of the present study was to identify clinical predictors and sex differences for treatment with CA in the AF-HF population.

Methods

A population-based AF-HF cohort was created using the Quebec administrative data (2000-2017). Patients were followed from the date of diagnosis of both diseases to the date of CA or death. Predictors for CA, represented by time-varying covariates, were assessed in a multivariable Cox model that accounted for the competing risk of death.

Results

Among 101,931 patients with AF-HF with medication information (median age, 80.7 years; interquartile range [IQR], 73.9-86.3; 51.4% were female, median CHA₂DS₂-VASc, 4; IQR, 3-4), only 432 (0.4%) underwent CA after a median of 0.8 years (IQR, 0.1-2.7). Independent of multiple comorbidities and advanced age, which were associated with a lower likelihood of CA, women were approximately half as likely to undergo a CA (26% were women; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.7). Prior use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and antiarrhythmics, and the presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator were also predictors for CA treatment (P < 0.05 for all).

Conclusion

In a real-world population, CA was infrequently used to treat AF among patients with HF, and the likelihood of CA was further reduced in women. Because patients with CA had few comorbidities, future studies need to be conducted to determine whether CA can be beneficial in subjects whose clinical characteristics are more representative of the AF-HF population.

The management of atrial fibrillation in heart failure: an expert panel consensus

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, being closely interrelated as the one increases the prevalence and incidence and worsens the prognosis of the other. Their frequent coexistence raises several challenges, including under-diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction in AF and of AF in HF, characterization and diagnosis of atrial cardiomyopathy, target and impact of rate control therapy on outcomes, optimal rhythm control strategy in the era of catheter ablation, HF-related thromboembolic risk and management of anticoagulation in patients with comorbidities, such as chronic kidney disease or transient renal function worsening, coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, valvular or structural heart disease interventions and cancer. In the present document, derived by an expert panel meeting, we sought to focus on the above challenging issues, outlining the existing evidence and identifying gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Focus on Antithrombotic Management

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), increasingly common in the aging population, are closely related and commonly found together. This article explores the relationship between AF and HF and the thromboembolic effect of these diseases. Morbidity and mortality are increased when the 2 conditions are seen together. Stroke risks are significant with AF and all subtypes of HF. This article suggests that all patients with AF and HF should be considered for anticoagulation. Current evidence suggests that non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are effective and safe in AF and HF in comparison with warfarin.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in patients at intermediate or high surgical risk. However, until recently there was insufficient evidence regarding the outcomes of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients at low risk.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of all randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in patients at low surgical risk. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, using fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four trials were eligible for analysis and comprised a total of 2887 patients (1497 allocated to TAVR and 1390 allocated to SAVR group). TAVR was associated with a 39% relative risk reduction (RRR) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (absolute risk reduction ARR of 3.7%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79); 39% RRR of overall mortality (ARR of 1.4%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.96) and 45% RRR of cardiovascular mortality (ARR of 1.3%; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.90), 69% RRR of life threatening or disabling bleeding (ARR of 7.0%; RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.22-0.44), 73% RRR of new-onset atrial fibrillation (ARR of 29%; RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.35) and 73% RRR of acute kidney injury (ARR of 2.1%; RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14-0.56) as compared with SAVR. In contrast, TAVR was associated with a 4.7-fold increased risk of new pacemaker (PM) implantation (RR 4.72; 95% CI 1.83-12.15), which was driven by use of self-expanding valves.

CONCLUSION

TAVR in low-risk patients is superior to SAVR for the majority of outcomes.

Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Heart Failure with Different Ejection Fractions: RIF-CHF Register One-Year Follow-Up

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are tightly interrelated. The concurrence of these pathologies can aggravate the pathological process. The geographic and ethnic characteristics of patients may significantly affect the efficacy of different types of therapy and patients' compliance. The objective of this study was to analyze how the features of the course of the diseases and management of HF + AF influence the clinical outcomes.

Methods

The data of 1,003 patients from the first Russian register of patients with chronic heart failure and atrial fibrillation (RIF-CHF) were analyzed. The endpoints included hospitalization due to HF worsening, mortality, thromboembolic events, and hemorrhage. Predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (AF + HFpEF), midrange ejection fraction (AF + HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (AF + HFrEF). Prevalence of HF + AF and compliance with long-term treatment of this pathology during one year were evaluated for each patient.

Results

The study involved 39% AF + HFpEF patients, 15% AF + HFmrEF patients, and 46% AF + HFrEF patients. AF + HFpEF patients were significantly older than patients in two other groups (40.6% of patients were older than ≥75 years vs. 24.8%, respectively, p < 0.001) and had the lowest rate of prior myocardial infarctions (25.3% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) and the lowest adherence to rational therapy of HF (27.4% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). AF + HFmrEF patients had the highest percentage of cases of HF onset after AF (61.3% vs. 49.2% in other patient groups, p=0.021). Among patients with AF + HFrEF, there was the highest percentage of males (74.2% vs. 41% in other patient groups, p < 0.001) and the highest percentage of ever-smokers (51.9% vs. 29.4% in other patient groups, p < 0.001). A total of 57.2% of patients were rehospitalized for decompensation of chronic heart failure within one year; the risk was the highest for AF + HFmrEF patients (66%, p=0.017). Reduced ejection fraction was associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (15.5% vs. 5.4% in other patient groups, p < 0.001) rather than ischemic stroke (2.4% vs. 3%, p=0.776). Patients with AF + HFpEF had lower risk to achieve the combination point (stroke + IM + CV death) as compared to patients with AF + HFmrEF and AF + HFrEF (12.7% vs. 22% and 25.5%, p < 0.001). Regression logistic analysis revealed that factors such as demographic characteristics, disease severity, and administered treatment had different effects on the risk of unfavorable outcomes depending on ejection fraction group. The clinical features and symptoms were found to be significant risk factors of cardiovascular mortality in AF + HFmrEF, while therapy characteristics were not associated with it.

Conclusions

Each group of patients with different ejection fractions is characterized by its own pattern of factors associated with the development of unfavorable outcomes. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with midrange ejection fraction demonstrate that these patients need to be studied as a separate cohort.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in older adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as efficacious and safe as warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients; limited evidence is available regarding NVAF patients with heart failure (HF). US Medicare enrollees with NVAF and HF initiating DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) or warfarin were selected. Propensity score matching and Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comparing DOACs versus warfarin and DOACs versus DOACs. We identified 10,570 apixaban-warfarin, 4,297 dabigatran-warfarin, 15,712 rivaroxaban-warfarin, 4,263 apixaban-dabigatran, 10,477 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 4,297 dabigatran-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Compared to warfarin, apixaban had lower rates of stroke/SE (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.85), MB (hazard ratio = 0.66, 0.58-0.76), and MACE (hazard ratio = 0.73,0.67-0.79); dabigatran and rivaroxaban had lower rates of MACE (hazard ratio = 0.87,0.77-0.99; hazard ratio = 0.84, 0.79-0.89, respectively). Rivaroxaban had a lower stroke/SE rate (hazard ratio = 0.65, 0.52-0.81) and higher MB rate (hazard ratio = 1.18, 1.08-1.30) versus warfarin. Compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban had lower MB (hazard ratio = 0.71, 0.57-0.89; hazard ratio = 0.55, 0.49-0.63) and MACE rates (hazard ratio = 0.80, 0.69-0.93; hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.79-0.94), respectively. All DOACs had lower MACE rates versus warfarin; differences were observed in stroke/SE and MB. Our findings provide insights about OAC therapy among NVAF patients with HF.