Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Preserved, Mid-Range, and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial Fibrillation and Semaglutide Effects in Obesity-Related Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: STEP-HFpEF Program

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a key factor in the development and progression of both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). In the STEP-HFpEF Program (comprising the STEP-HFpEF [Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity] and STEP-HFpEF DM [Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes] trials), once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg improved HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function and reduced body weight in patients with obesity-related HFpEF. Whether the effects of semaglutide in this patient group differ in participants with and without AF (and across various AF types) has not been fully examined.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were: 1) to evaluate baseline characteristics and clinical features of patients with obesity-related HFpEF with and without a history of AF; and 2) to determine if the efficacy of semaglutide across all key trial outcomes are influenced by baseline history of AF (and AF types) in the STEP-HFpEF Program.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials. Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) <90 points were randomized 1:1 to receive once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or matching placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary endpoints (change in KCCQ-CSS and percent change in body weight), confirmatory secondary endpoints (change in 6-minute walk distance; hierarchical composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, HF events, thresholds of change in KCCQ-CSS, and 6-minute walk distance; and C-reactive protein [CRP]), and exploratory endpoint (change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) were examined according to investigator-reported history of AF (yes/no). Responder analyses examined the proportions of patients who experienced a ≥5-, ≥10, ≥15, and ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ-CSS per history of AF.

RESULTS

Of the 1,145 participants, 518 (45%) had a history of AF (40% paroxysmal, 24% persistent AF, and 35% permanent AF) and 627 (55%) did not. Participants with (vs without) AF were older, more often male, had higher NT-proBNP levels, included a higher proportion of those with NYHA functional class III symptoms, and used more antithrombotic therapies, beta-blockers, and diuretics. Semaglutide led to larger improvements in KCCQ-CSS (11.5 points [95% CI: 8.3-14.8] vs 4.3 points [95% CI: 1.3-7.2]; P interaction = 0.001) and the hierarchal composite endpoint (win ratio of 2.25 [95% CI: 1.79-2.83] vs 1.30 [95% CI: 1.06-1.59]; P interaction < 0.001) in participants with AF vs without AF, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving semaglutide vs those receiving placebo experiencing ≥5-, ≥10-, ≥15-, and ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ-CSS were also higher in those with (vs without) AF (all P interaction values <0.05). Semaglutide consistently reduced CRP, NT-proBNP, and body weight regardless of AF status (all P interaction values not significant). There were fewer serious adverse events and serious cardiac disorders in participants treated with semaglutide vs placebo irrespective of AF history.

CONCLUSIONS

In the STEP-HFpEF Program, AF was observed in nearly one-half of patients with obesity-related HFpEF and was associated with several features of more advanced HF. Treatment with semaglutide led to significant improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, as well as reductions in weight, CRP, and NT-proBNP in people with and without AF and across AF types. The magnitude of semaglutide-mediated improvements in HF-related symptoms and physical limitations was more pronounced in those with AF vs without AF at baseline. (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity [STEP-HFpEF; NCT04788511]; Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes [STEP-HFpEF DM; NCT04916470]).

Global epidemiology of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome marked by substantial morbidity and mortality. The natural history of HF is well established; however, epidemiological data are continually evolving owing to demographic shifts, advances in treatment and variations in access to health care. Although the incidence of HF has stabilized or declined in high-income countries over the past decade, its prevalence continues to increase, driven by an ageing population, an increase in risk factors, the effectiveness of novel therapies and improved survival. This rise in prevalence is increasingly noted among younger adults and is accompanied by a shift towards HF with preserved ejection fraction. However, disparities exist in our epidemiological understanding of HF burden and progression in low-income and middle-income countries owing to the lack of comprehensive data in these regions. Therefore, the current epidemiological landscape of HF highlights the need for periodic surveillance and resource allocation tailored to geographically vulnerable areas. In this Review, we highlight global trends in the burden of HF, focusing on the variations across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. We also discuss evolving population-based estimates of HF incidence and prevalence, the risk factors for and aetiologies of this disease, and outcomes in different geographical regions and populations.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Treatment Strategy of Different Types of Heart Failure in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in patients with heart failure (HF). Epidemiological data regarding HF in patients with AF are lacking. We describe the epidemiology, clinical features, treatment strategies, and in-hospital outcomes in patients with AF and HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF and nonvalvular AF in the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-AF cohort from February 2015 to December 2019 were included. Patients were stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction into HF with reduced EF, HF with mildly reduced EF, and HF with preserved EF groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of hospitalization for major adverse cardiovascular events, including death, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and stroke. Overall, 16 562 patients with AF and HF were included (mean age: 72.35±11.07 years; 46.1% female). HF with preserved EF (63.1%) accounted for the largest proportion, followed by HF with mildly reduced EF (19.0%) and HF with reduced EF (17.9%). Different HF subtypes in patients with AF had unique baseline demographic and clinical characteristics after multinomial logistic regression analysis. Compared with the HF with preserved EF group, hospitalization for major adverse cardiovascular events was increased in the HF with mildly reduced EF group (odds ratio=1.55 [95% CI, 1.18-2.03]) and HF with reduced EF group (odds ratio 1.60 [95% CI, 1.21-2.13]) after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large Chinese AF registry, the distribution of HF differed from the non-AF population. Patients with AF with different types of HF have unique demographic and clinical characteristics. Occurrence rates of in-hospital outcomes were higher in patients with HF with mildly reduced EF and patients with HF with reduced EF compared with the HF with preserved EF group.

REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02309398.

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.

The Emerging Role of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in the Management of Obesity-Related Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Benefits beyond What Scales Can Measure?

Obesity is a significant predisposing factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Although a substantial proportion of individuals with HFpEF also have obesity, those with obesity are under-represented in clinical trials for heart failure. In turn, current guidelines provided limited recommendations for the medical management of this patient population. Both obesity and diabetes induce a pro-inflammatory state that can contribute to endothelial dysfunction and coronary microvascular impairment, finally resulting in HFpEF. Additionally, obesity leads to increased epicardial and chest wall adiposity, which enhances ventricular interdependence. This condition is further aggravated by plasma and blood volume expansion and excessive vasoconstriction, ultimately worsening HFpEF. Despite the well-documented benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists in subjects with diabetes, obesity, or both, their role in obesity-related HFpEF remains unclear. In light of the recently published literature, this review aims to investigate the potential mechanisms and synthesize the available clinical evidence regarding the role of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with obesity-related HFpEF.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction "twindemic"-Shared root causes and treatment targets

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are comorbid conditions that are increasingly prevalent and have a high socioeconomic burden. This article discusses their shared pathophysiology, focusing on the triad of hypertension, obesity, and aging. We highlight the misperception that pharmacological heart rate lowering is beneficial, which has resulted in an overprescription of β-blockers in HFpEF and AF. In contrast, heart rate modulation through accelerated pacing provides hemodynamic and structural advantages, which have yielded significant improvements in quality of life, physical activity, and AF burden in the personalized pacing for diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (myPACE) trial of patients with preclinical or overt HFpEF.

All-Cause Mortality of Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure in the Same Patient: Does the Order Matter?

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist due to the common elements of the pathomechanism they share. The potential significance of the order these entities present in the same patient is ill-defined. Herein, we report our results from a nationwide database on the occurrence of various sequences AF and HF may present, the time delays between the two conditions and all-cause mortality associated with different scenarios.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with both AF and HF between 2015 and 2021 were enrolled from the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database. The order the two entities followed each other, and the time delay in between were registered. Median survival rates were calculated in AF → HF; HF → AF and simultaneous scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 109,075 patients were enrolled: 29,937 with AF → HF, 38,171 with HF → AF, and 40,967 diagnosed simultaneously. Time delays between AF → HF and HF → AF were 6 and 10 months, respectively. The median survival was 46 months in the AF → HF, 38 months in the HF → AF, and 21 months in the simultaneous group. Patients with HF → AF, and with simultaneous presentations had 5% and 16% greater mortality risk as compared to the AF → HF sequence, with hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.84 (0.82-0.85), respectively (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

HF occurred significantly earlier after the diagnosis of AF than vice versa. Patients diagnosed simultaneously had the worst, while the AF → HF sequence had the best prognosis. These data should have implications for the intensification of monitoring and therapy in different scenarios.

Incremental value of diastolic wall strain in predicting heart failure events in patients with atrial fibrillation

Diastolic wall strain (DWS), an echocardiographic index based on linear elasticity theory, has been identified as a predictor of heart failure (HF) in patients with sinus rhythm. However, its effectiveness in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients remains uncertain. This study aims to assess DWS as a predictor of HF in AF patients with preserved ejection fraction. We analysed a prospective database of AF patients undergoing transthoracic echocardiography. AF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< 50%), posterior wall motion abnormality, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, pericardial disease, congenital heart disease, or history of pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation or cardiac surgery were excluded. The study followed patients until HF development, death, or last visit. Follow-up for patients who underwent catheter ablation was censored on the date of their procedure. HF was ascertained based on the Framingham criteria. DWS was calculated using a validated formula: DWS = (PWs -PWd)/PWs, where PWs is the posterior wall thickness at end-systole and PWd is the posterior wall thickness at end-diastole. Among 411 study patients (mean age 69.6 years, 66% men), 20 (5%) was underwent catheter ablation and 57 (14%) developed HF during a mean follow-up of 82 months. Cox-proportional hazards demonstrated that low DWS (≤ 0.33) significantly predicted HF events (hazard ratio [HR] 3.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]) 1.81-5.94, P < 0.0001), independent of age (per 10 years; HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.35-2.93, P < 0.001), indexed left ventricular mass (per 10 g/m2; HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.27, P < 0.01), and indexed left atrial volume (per 10 mL/m2; HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24, P < 0.01). Additionally, global log-likelihood ratio chi-square statistics indicated that DWS incrementally predicts HF development beyond age, indexed left ventricular mass, and left atrial volume (P < 0.001).

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: New Assessment of an Old Problem

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF)-specifically, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)-often coexist, and each contributes to the propagation of the other. This relationship extends from the mechanistic and physiological to clinical syndromes, quality of life, and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The risk factors for AF and HF overlap and create a critical opportunity to prevent adverse outcomes among patients at greatest risk for either condition. Increasing recognition of the linkages between AF and HF have led to widespread interest in designing diagnostic, predictive, and interventional strategies targeting all aspects of disease, from identifying genetic predisposition to addressing social determinants of health. Advances across this spectrum culminated in updated multisociety guidelines for management of AF, which includes specific consideration of comorbid AF and HF. This review expands on these guidelines by further highlighting relevant clinical trial findings and providing additional context for the evolving recommendations for management in this important and growing population.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Focus on the Latest Clinical Evidence

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure are two common cardiovascular conditions that frequently coexist, and it has been widely demonstrated that in patients with chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. Nevertheless, there is no unanimous consensus in the literature on how to approach this category of patients and which therapeutic strategy (rhythm control or frequency control) is the most favorable in terms of prognosis; moreover, there is still a lack of data comparing the different ablative techniques of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy, and many of the current trials do not consider current ablative techniques such as high-power short-duration ablation index protocol for radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Eventually, while several RCTs have widely proved that in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, ablation of atrial fibrillation is superior to medical therapy alone, there is no consensus regarding those with preserved ejection fraction. For these reasons, in this review, we aim to summarize the main updated evidence guiding clinical decision in this complex scenario, with a special focus on the most recent trials and the latest meta-analyses that examined the role of catheter ablation (CA) in rhythm control in patients with AF and HF.

Echocardiographic assessment of atrial, ventricular, and valvular function in patients with atrial fibrillation-an expert proposal by the german working group of cardiovascular ultrasound

Echocardiography in patients with atrial fibrillation is challenging due to the varying heart rate. Thus, the topic of this expert proposal focuses on an obvious gap in the current recommendations about diagnosis and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF)-the peculiarities and difficulties of echocardiographic imaging. The assessment of systolic and diastolic function-especially in combination with valvular heart diseases-by echocardiography can basically be done by averaging the results of echocardiographic measurements of the respective parameters or by the index beat approach, which uses a representative cardiac cycle for measurement. Therefore, a distinction must be made between the functionally relevant status, which is characterized by the averaging method, and the best possible hemodynamic status, which is achieved with the most optimal left ventricular (LV) filling according to the index beat method with longer previous RR intervals. This proposal focuses on left atrial and left ventricular function and deliberately excludes problems of echocardiography when assessing left atrial appendage in terms of its complexity. Echocardiography of the left atrial appendage is therefore reserved for its own expert proposal.

Prognosis and treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The study investigates the prognosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Data concerning the prognostic impact of AF in patients with HFmrEF is scarce.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF [i.e. left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of heart failure (HF)] were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with AF were compared with patients without with regard to the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months (median follow-up). Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses, and propensity score matching. A total of 2148 patients with HFmrEF were included with an overall prevalence of AF of 43%. The presence of AF was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint all-cause mortality and HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.068; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.802-2.375; P = 0.01], which was confirmed after propensity score matching (HR = 1.494; 95% CI 1.216-1.835; P = 0.01). AF was an independent predictor of both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.340; 95% CI 1.066-1.685; P = 0.01) and HF-related rehospitalization (HR = 2.061; 95% CI 1.538-2.696; P = 0.01). Finally, rhythm control may be associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with rate control for AF (HR = 0.342; 95% CI 0.199-0.587; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Atrial fibrillation affects 43% of patients with HFmrEF and represents an independent predictor of adverse long-term prognosis.

The value of phenylalanine in predicting atrial fibrillation risk in chronic heart failure

Backgrounds

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of chronic heart failure (HF). Serum phenylalanine (Phe) levels are related to inflammation disorder. It is meaningful to study the circulating Phe with AF occurrence in HF.

Methods

The cross-sectional study recruited 300 patients (78.0% male; mean age, 65 ± 13 years) with HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤50%, containing 70 AF patients) and 100 normal controls. Serum Phe value was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to measure the association between Phe and AF risk in HF. The association between Phe and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was assessed by simple correlation analysis. In the prospective study, the 274 HF subjects (76.6% male; mean age, 65 ± 13 years) were followed up for a mean year (10.99 ± 3.00 months).

Results

Serum Phe levels increased across the control, the HF without AF, and the HF with AF groups (77.60 ± 8.67 umol/L vs. 95.24 ± 28.58 umol/L vs. 102.90 ± 30.43 umol/L, ANOVA P < 0.001). Serum Phe value was the independent risk factor for predicting AF in HF [odds ratio (OR), 1.640; 95% CI: 1.150-2.339; P = 0.006]. Phe levels were correlated positively with hsCRP value in HF patients with AF (r = 0.577, P < 0.001). The elevated Phe levels were associated with a higher risk of HF endpoint events in HF patients with AF (log-rank P = 0.005).

Conclusions

In HF with AF subjects, elevated Phe value confers an increased risk for prediction AF and was more related to poor HF endpoint events. Phe can be a valuable index of AF in HF.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

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

Characterizing atrial fibrillation in patients with and without heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: Incidence, prevalence, and treatment strategies

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist. We explored AF incidence, prevalence, and treatment strategies in patients with versus without HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed patients with HF from the Swedish HF Registry (1 December 2005-31 December 2021), matched 1:1 by sex, age, and county of residence to patients without HF from Statistics Sweden. Two study cohorts were derived (i) to assess AF prevalence and treatments, and (ii) to evaluate AF incidence and related predictors. Overall, 195 106 patients were considered, 50% of them with HF (of whom 54% with HF with reduced [HFrEF], 23% mildly reduced [HFmrEF], and 23% with preserved EF [HFpEF]). From 2006 to 2021, AF prevalence increased in both patients with (57% to 58%) and without HF (8% to 11%). HF patients, particularly if with HFrEF, were more likely receiving AF treatments than those without HF. Over time, antiarrhythmic use decreased, while rate control drugs and oral anticoagulant use, and AF-related procedures increased, regardless of HF and EF. During a median follow-up of 3.7 years, in 86 210 patients without AF, incident AF risk was two-fold higher in HF versus non-HF (hazard ratio [HR] 2.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45-3.12), highest in HFpEF (HR 3.12, 95% CI 2.65-3.67) versus HFrEF (HR 2.68, 95% CI 2.34-3.06) and HFmrEF (HR 2.53, 95% CI 2.17-2.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation prevalence, anticoagulant use, and AF-related procedures increased over time regardless of HF, with HF patients more likely receiving AF treatments. In HF, despite higher AF prevalence and incidence in HFpEF, AF treatment use remained modest, calling for further implementation.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Systematic Review Registration

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

Sex differences in clinical profile, left ventricular remodeling and cardiovascular outcomes among diabetic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a cardiac-MRI-based study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with a high rate of mortality and morbidity. Evidence has shown that sex differences may be an important contributor to phenotypic heterogeneity in patients with HFrEF. Although diabetes mellitus (DM) frequently coexists with HFrEF and results in a worse prognosis, there remains a need to identify sex-related differences in the characteristics and outcomes of this population. In this study, we aimed to investigate the between-sex differences in clinical profile, left ventricular (LV) remodeling, and cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes in patients with HFrEF concomitant with DM.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients with HFrEF concomitant with DM who underwent cardiac MRI were included in this study. Clinical characteristics, LV remodeling as assessed by cardiac MRI, and cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes were compared between sexes.

RESULTS

Women were older, leaner and prone to have anemia and hypoproteinemia but less likely to have ischemic etiology. Cardiac MRI revealed that despite similar LVEFs between the sexes, there was more LV concentric remodeling, less impaired global systolic peak strain in longitudinal and circumferential components and a decreased likelihood of late gadolinium enhancement presence in women than in men. During a median follow-up time of 34.6 months, women exhibited better overall survival than men did (log-rank P = 0.042). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated different risk factors for predicting outcomes between sexes, with hypertension [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 4.85, P = 0.041] and hypoproteinemia (HR = 2.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.37, P = 0.039) serving as independent determinants of outcomes in women, whereas ischemic etiology (HR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.48, P = 0.021) and atrial fibrillation (HR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.41, P = 0.044) served as independent determinants of outcomes in men.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HFrEF concomitant with DM, women displayed different LV remodeling and risk factors and had better survival than men did. Sex-based phenotypic heterogeneity in patients with HFrEF in the context of DM should be addressed in clinical practice.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Exploring Sirtuins: New Frontiers in Managing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

With increasing research, the sirtuin (SIRT) protein family has become increasingly understood. Studies have demonstrated that SIRTs can aid in metabolism and affect various physiological processes, such as atherosclerosis, heart failure (HF), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and other related disorders. Although the pathogenesis of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not yet been clarified, SIRTs have a role in its development. Therefore, SIRTs may offer a fresh approach to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of HFpEF as a novel therapeutic intervention target.

Characterization of patients with extensive left atrial myopathy referred for atrial fibrillation ablation: incidence, predictors, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although atrial fibrosis has a relevant impact on ablation success rate, experimental studies have reported that extensive fibrosis may be accompanied by a reduced burden secondary to a prominent depression of atrial excitability.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify clinical and echocardiographic factors associated with extensive left atrial myopathy (ELAM), to analyze the predictive ability of established scores (AF score, APPLE, and DR-FLASH) and assess outcomes in terms of AF recurrence, left atrial flutter, and post-procedural heart failure admissions.

METHODS

A total of 950 consecutive patients undergoing the first AF ablation were included. A 3D electroanatomical mapping system (CARTO3, Biosense Webster) was created using a multipolar mapping catheter (PentaRay, Biosense Webster). ELAM was defined as ≥ 50% low voltage area. A subanalysis with four groups was also created (< 10%; 10-20%; 10-20%; and > 30%). Logistic regressions, Cox proportional hazards models, and log-rank test were used to test the predictors independently associated with the presence of ELAM and AF recurrence. The model was prospectively validated in a cohort of 150 patients obtaining an excellent ability for prediction AUC 0.90 (CI 95% 0.84-0.96).

RESULTS

Overall, 78 (8.42%) presented ELAM. Age, female sex, persistent AF, first-degree AV block, and E/e' were significant predictors. The model incorporating these factors outperformed the existing scores (AUC = 0.87). During a mean follow-up of 20 months (IQR 9 to 36), patients with ELAM presented a higher rate of AF recurrence (42.02% vs 26.01%, p = 0.030), left atrial flutter (26.03% vs 8.02%, p < 0.001), and post-procedural heart failure admissions (12.01% vs 0.61%, p < 0.001) than non-ELAM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals the incidence and clinical factors associated with ELAM in AF, highlighting age, female, persistent AF, first-degree AV block, and E/e'. Importantly, the presence of ELAM is associated with poorer outcomes in terms of recurrence and HF admission.

Evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure by echocardiography in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Echocardiography is widely used to evaluate left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients suspected of heart failure. For patients in sinus rhythm, a combination of several echocardiographic parameters can differentiate between normal and elevated LV filling pressure with good accuracy. However, there is no established echocardiographic approach for the evaluation of LV filling pressure in patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of the present study was to determine if a combination of several echocardiographic and clinical parameters may be used to evaluate LV filling pressure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

In a multicentre study of 148 atrial fibrillation patients, several echocardiographic parameters were tested against invasively measured LV filling pressure as the reference method. No single parameter had sufficiently strong association with LV filling pressure to be recommended for clinical use. Based on univariate regression analysis in the present study, and evidence from existing literature, we developed a two-step algorithm for differentiation between normal and elevated LV filling pressure, defining values ≥ 15 mmHg as elevated. The parameters in the first step included the ratio between mitral early flow velocity and septal mitral annular velocity (septal E/e'), mitral E velocity, deceleration time of E, and peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity. Patients who could not be classified in the first step were tested in a second step by applying supplementary parameters, which included left atrial reservoir strain, pulmonary venous systolic/diastolic velocity ratio, and body mass index. This two-step algorithm classified patients as having either normal or elevated LV filling pressure with 75% accuracy and with 85% feasibility. Accuracy in EF ≥ 50% and EF < 50% was similar (75% and 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atrial fibrillation, no single echocardiographic parameter was sufficiently reliable to be used clinically to identify elevated LV filling pressure. An algorithm that combined several echocardiographic parameters and body mass index, however, was able to classify patients as having normal or elevated LV filling pressure with moderate accuracy and high feasibility.

The impact of atrial fibrillation on clinical outcomes in heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction patients

BACKGROUND

The combined effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) on clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) remains complex.

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial, we aimed to evaluate the impact of AF on clinical outcomes in patients with HF stratified by LVEF range.

METHODS

A total of 3442 patients were included, stratified into 3 groups according to LVEF range-HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), LVEF of 45%-50% (n = 823); HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), LVEF of 51%-60% (n = 1682); and HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF), LVEF >60% (n = 937)-and subdivided according to the presence of AF at enrollment. Cox regression analysis was used to define independent associations between AF and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

AF was prevalent in 38.6% in HFmrEF, 34.6% in HFpEF, and 33.7% in HFnEF (P = .07). AF was associated with worse primary outcome in each subgroup and with HF hospitalizations and worse cardiovascular mortality in HFpEF and HFnEF. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome in those with AF compared with sinus rhythm (SR) was 1.11 (1.01-1.22; P = .03) in HFmrEF, 1.20 (1.11-1.29; P < .001) in HFpEF, and 1.16 (1.05-1.28; P = .004) in HFnEF. When LVEF was treated as a continuous variable, there was a linear negative association between LVEF and the effect of AF vs SR for the primary end point and HF hospitalizations and a linear positive association for cardiovascular mortality.

CONCLUSION

Compared with SR, AF was independently associated with worse outcomes across all LVEF ranges.

Atrial fibrillation type and long-term clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with heart failure: insight from JROADHF

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) type (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent) is important in determining therapeutic management; however, clinical outcomes by AF type are largely unknown for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Japanese Registry Of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure is a retrospective, multicenter, and nationwide registry of patients hospitalized for acute HF in Japan. Follow-up data were collected up to 5 years after hospitalization. Patients were divided based on diagnosis and AF type into 3 groups [without AF, paroxysmal AF, and sustained AF (defined as a composite of persistent and permanent AF)], and compared the backgrounds and outcomes between the groups. Of 12 895 hospitalized HF patients [mean age: 78 ± 13 years, female: 6077 (47%), and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 47 ± 17%], 1725 had paroxysmal AF, and 3672 had sustained AF. Compared with patients without AF, sustained AF had a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.17; P = 0.03], mainly driven by HF hospitalization [HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06-1.26; P < 0.001], whereas the corresponding risk for the primary endpoint in patients with paroxysmal AF was not elevated (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; P = 0.53) after adjustment by multivariable Cox regression analysis. These results were consistent among the subgroups of patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (interaction P = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Among hospitalized patients with HF, sustained AF, but not paroxysmal AF, was significantly associated with a higher risk for CV death or HF hospitalization, indicating the importance of accounting for AF type in HF patients.

Catheter ablation of atrial arrhythmias in cardiac amyloidosis: Impact on heart failure and mortality

BACKGROUND

Atrial arrhythmias (AA) commonly affect patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA) and are a contributing risk factor for the development of heart failure (HF). This study sought to investigate the long-term efficacy and impact of catheter ablation on HF progression in patients with CA and AA.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients with CA and AA undergoing catheter ablation were retrospectively included (transthyretin-ATTR CA 61% and light chain-AL CA 39%). AA subtypes included atrial fibrillation (AFib) in 22 (paroxysmal in 10 and persistent in 12), atrial flutter (AFl) in 17 and atrial tachycardia (AT) in 11 patients. Long-term AA recurrence rates were evaluated along with the impact of sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance on HF and mortality.

RESULTS

AA recurrence was observed in 14 patients (45%) at a median of 3.5 months (AFib n = 8, AT n = 6, AFl = 0). Post-cardioversion, medical therapy or catheter ablation, 10 patients (32%) remained in permanent AA. Over a median follow-up of 19 months, all-cause mortality was 39% (n = 12): 3 with end-stage HF, 5 due to late complications of CA, 1 sudden cardiac death, 1 stroke, 1 COVID 19 (and one unknown). With maintenance of SR following catheter ablation, significant reductions in serum creatinine and natriuretic peptide levels were observed with improvements in NYHA class. Two patients required hospitalization for HF in the SR maintenance cohort compared to 5 patients in the AA recurrence cohort (p = 0.1). All 3 patients with deaths secondary to HF had AA recurrence compared to 11 out of the 28 patients whom were long-term survivors or deaths not related to HF (p = 0.04). All-cause mortality was not associated with AA recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates moderate long-term efficacy of SR maintenance with catheter ablation for AA in patients with CA. Improvements in clinical and biological status with positive trends in HF mortality are observed if SR can be maintained.

The Therapy and Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: New Insights on Treatment

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a clinical syndrome characterised by the presence of diastolic dysfunction and elevated left ventricular filling pressure, in the setting of a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. Despite the epidemiological prevalence of HFpEF, a prompt diagnosis is challenging and many uncertainties exist. HFpEF is characterised by different phenotypes driven by various cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. This is probably the reason why several HFpEF clinical trials in the past did not reach strong outcomes to recommend a single therapy for this syndrome; however, this paradigm has recently changed, and the unmet clinical need for HFpEF treatment found a proper response as a result of a new class of drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which beneficially act through the whole spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. The aim of this review was to focus on the therapeutic target of HFpEF, the role of new drugs and the potential role of new devices to manage the syndrome.

Development of automated neural network prediction for echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction

Introduction

The echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is fundamental to the diagnosis and classification of patients with heart failure (HF).

Methods

This paper aimed to quantify LVEF automatically and accurately with the proposed pipeline method based on deep neural networks and ensemble learning. Within the pipeline, an Atrous Convolutional Neural Network (ACNN) was first trained to segment the left ventricle (LV), before employing the area-length formulation based on the ellipsoid single-plane model to calculate LVEF values. This formulation required inputs of LV area, derived from segmentation using an improved Jeffrey's method, as well as LV length, derived from a novel ensemble learning model. To further improve the pipeline's accuracy, an automated peak detection algorithm was used to identify end-diastolic and end-systolic frames, avoiding issues with human error. Subsequently, single-beat LVEF values were averaged across all cardiac cycles to obtain the final LVEF.

Results

This method was developed and internally validated in an open-source dataset containing 10,030 echocardiograms. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.83 for LVEF prediction compared to expert human analysis (p < 0.001), with a subsequent area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 0.99) for categorisation of HF with reduced ejection (HFrEF; LVEF<40%). In an external dataset with 200 echocardiograms, this method achieved an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.91) for HFrEF assessment.

Conclusion

The automated neural network-based calculation of LVEF is comparable to expert clinicians performing time-consuming, frame-by-frame manual evaluations of cardiac systolic function.

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.

The role of multimorbidity in patients with heart failure across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to provide data on the overall comorbidity burden, both cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV, in a large real-world heart failure (HF) population across the ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF from the Swedish HF Registry between 2000 and 2021 were included. Of 91 463 patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 67-82]), 98% had at least one among the 17 explored comorbidities (94% at least one CV and 85% at least one non-CV comorbidity). All comorbidities, except for coronary artery disease (CAD), were more frequent in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Patients with multiple comorbidities were older, more likely female, inpatients, with HFpEF, worse New York Heart Association class and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In a multivariable Cox model, 12 comorbidities were independently associated with a higher risk of death from any cause. The highest risk was associated with dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.65), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.34-1.41), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.28-1.35). Obesity was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-0.84). CAD and valvular heart disease were associated with a higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, but not non-CV mortality, whereas cancer and musculo-skeletal disease increased the risk of non-CV mortality. A significant interaction with EF was observed for several comorbidities. Occurrence of CV and non-CV outcomes was related to the number of CV and non-CV comorbidities, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The burden of both CV and non-CV comorbidities was high in HF regardless of EF, but overall higher in HFpEF. Multimorbidity was associated with a high risk of death with a different burden on CV or non-CV outcomes.

[Prevalence, incidence and predictive factors of atrial fibrillation in geriatric patients-A prospective observational study]

BACKGROUND AND QUESTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the total population, and previous studies have already reported the prevalence of AF; however, AF is of special importance in geriatric patients due to demographic changes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine how many geriatric patients have a history of AF (prevalence) and how often AF can be newly diagnosed during an inpatient stay (incidence). Additionally, predictive factors for the incidence of AF in geriatric patients are described.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

In a monocentric prospective observational study from April 2021 to April 2022, all admissions to a geriatric clinic were included in the study. Data collection was carried out using the patients' digital files. As part of the admission routine, all patients had a 12-lead ECG recorded. Additionally, a 24‑h long-term electrocardiogram (LTECG) was used in a subset of patients depending on the clinical need.

RESULTS

A total of 1914 participants were included in the study. At the time of admission, 715 (37.4%) patients had a known history of AF. Of the remaining 1199 patients without a history of AF, AF could be newly detected in 73 cases (6.1%). Multivariate regression analysis identified age > 80 years (odds ratio, OR: 2.3) and heart failure (OR: 3.5) as significant risk factors for the incidence of AF (each p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite an already high prevalence, AF was newly diagnosed in 6% of patients during the stay at a geriatric clinic. Heart failure and age above 80 years were significantly associated with the presence of AF. This should be taken into account when screening for AF in this patient population.

Is atrial fibrillation in HFpEF a distinct phenotype? Insights from multiparametric MRI and circulating biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. There is a limited understanding on whether this coexistence is associated with distinct alterations in myocardial remodelling and mechanics. We aimed to determine if patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent a distinct phenotype.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of adults with HFpEF (NCT03050593), participants were comprehensively phenotyped with stress cardiac MRI, echocardiography and plasma fibroinflammatory biomarkers, and were followed for the composite endpoint (HF hospitalisation or death) at a median of 8.5 years. Those with AF were compared to sinus rhythm (SR) and unsupervised cluster analysis was performed to explore possible phenotypes.

RESULTS

136 subjects were included (SR = 75, AF = 61). The AF group was older (76 ± 8 vs. 70 ± 10 years) with less diabetes (36% vs. 61%) compared to the SR group and had higher left atrial (LA) volumes (61 ± 30 vs. 39 ± 15 mL/m2, p < 0.001), lower LA ejection fraction (EF) (31 ± 15 vs. 51 ± 12%, p < 0.001), worse left ventricular (LV) systolic function (LVEF 63 ± 8 vs. 68 ± 8%, p = 0.002; global longitudinal strain 13.6 ± 2.9 vs. 14.7 ± 2.4%, p = 0.003) but higher LV peak early diastolic strain rates (0.73 ± 0.28 vs. 0.53 ± 0.17 1/s, p < 0.001). The AF group had higher levels of syndecan-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2, proBNP, angiopoietin-2 and pentraxin-3, but lower level of interleukin-8. No difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the groups. Three distinct clusters were identified with the poorest outcomes (Log-rank p = 0.029) in cluster 2 (hypertensive and fibroinflammatory) which had equal representation of SR and AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of AF in HFpEF is associated with cardiac structural and functional changes together with altered expression of several fibro-inflammatory biomarkers. Distinct phenotypes exist in HFpEF which may have differing clinical outcomes.

Heart failure registries - Future directions

Heart failure (HF) is a growing, global public health issue. Despite advances in HF care, many challenges remain and HF outcomes are poor. Some of the major reasons for this are the lack of understanding and treatment for certain HF sub-types as well as the lack of implementation of treatment in areas where effective treatment exists. HF registries provide the opportunity to transform clinical research and patient care. Recently the registry-based randomized clinical trial has emerged as a pragmatic and inexpensive alternative to the gold standard in clinical trial design, the randomized controlled trial. Registries may also provide platforms for strategy trials, implementation trials, and screening. Using examples from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and others, the present review provides insights into how registry-based research can address many of the unmet needs in HF.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Colombian Heart Failure Registry

Background

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) represent conditions that commonly coexist. The impact of AF in HF has yet to be well studied in Latin America. This study aimed to characterize the sociodemographic and clinical features, along with patients' outcomes with AF and HF from the Colombian Heart Failure Registry (RECOLFACA).

Methods

Patients with ambulatory HF and AF were included in RECOLFACA, mainly with persistent or permanent AF. A 6-month follow-up was performed. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. To assess the impact of AF on mortality, we used a logistic regression model. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. All statistical tests were two-tailed.

Results

Of 2,528 patients with HF in the registry, 2,514 records included information regarding AF diagnosis. Five hundred sixty (22.3%) were in AF (mean age 73 ± 11, 56% men), while 1,954 had no AF (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 58% men). Patients with AF were significantly older and had a different profile of comorbidities and implanted devices compared to non-AF patients. Moreover, AF diagnosis was associated with lower quality of life score (EuroQol-5D), mainly in mobility, personal care, and daily activity. AF was prevalent in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF), while no significant differences in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were observed. Although higher mortality was observed in the AF group compared to individuals without AF (8.9% vs. 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.016), this association lost statistical significance after adjusting by age in a multivariate regression model (odds ratio (OR): 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95 - 1.92).

Conclusions

AF is more prevalent in HF patients with higher EF, lower quality of life and different clinical profiles. Similar HF severity and non-independent association with mortality were observed in our cohort. These results emphasize the need for an improved understanding of the AF and HF coexistence phenomenon.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

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.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: Where do we stand in 2023? - State of the art review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are common overlapping cardiovascular disorders. Despite important therapeutic advances over the past several decades, controversy persists about whether a rate control or rhythm control approach constitutes the best option in this population. There is also considerable debate about whether antiarrhythmic drug therapy or ablation is the best approach when rhythm control is pursued.  A brief historical examination of the literature addressing this issue will be performed. An analysis of several important clinical outcomes observed in the prospective, randomized studies, which have compared AF ablation to non-ablation treatment options, will be discussed. This review will conclude with recommendations to guide clinicians on the status of AF ablation as a treatment option when considering management options in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

Asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation: Clinical outcomes in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

The outcome implications of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in specific groups of patients according to clinical heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) need to be clarified.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, patients were categorized according to overt HF with LVEF≤40 %, or with LVEF>40 %, or without overt HF with LVEF40 %≤ or > 40 %, as well as according to the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic AF.

RESULTS

A total of 8096 patients, divided into 8 groups according to HF and LVEF, were included with similar proportions of asymptomatic AF (ranging from 43 to 48 %). After a median follow-up of 730 [699 -748] days, the composite outcome (all-cause death and MACE) was significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF associated with HF and reduced LVEF vs. symptomatic AF patients of the same group (p = 0.004). On adjusted Cox regression analysis, asymptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF were independently associated with a higher risk for the composite outcome (aHR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.04-1.69) and all-cause death (aHR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.02-1.73) compared to symptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that HF-LVEF≤40 % asymptomatic patients had the highest cumulative incidence of all-cause death and MACE (p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large European cohort of AF patients, the risk of the composite outcome at 2 years was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic AF in the whole cohort but adverse implications for poor outcomes were found for asymptomatic AF in HF with LVEF≤40 %.

Relationship between Pharmacological Treatment Strategy and Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Background and question: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the total population. The aim of this study is to determine how geriatric patients with AF are treated in terms of rhythm or rate control and whether a relationship between the type of treatment and Mini Mental Status (MMS) can be identified.

METHODS

In this monocentric, prospective, observational study, data including chronic medication as well as demographic parameters were collected from all patients in a geriatric department between April 2021 and April 2022. A 12-lead ECG as well as the Mini Mental Status were recorded for all patients as part of the admission routine, and a 24 h ECG was performed in selected patients on the basis of clinical indication.

RESULTS

At baseline, 715 out of 1914 patients (37.4%) had a known history of AF. Of these patients, 43 patients (6%) were on rhythm control therapy (RHY) and 672 (94%) were on rate control therapy (RATE). No difference in respect to MMS could be detected between RHY and RATE. However, linear regression analyses showed that age, HASBLED score, creatinine serum level, and an existing antiplatelet medication were associated with a negative influence on MMS, whereas oral anticoagulation (OAC) was associated with improved MMS, respectively (p < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of geriatric patients with AF are treated with a rate control strategy. Oral anticoagulation is associated with better results in MMS, whereas patients who are treated with antiplatelet medication show worse results in MMS instead.

Statin Therapy Is Associated With a Lower Risk of Heart Failure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Whether statin use can reduce the risk of heart failure (HF) remains controversial. The present study evaluates the association between statin use and HF in patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation from 2010 to 2018 were included. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline covariates between statin users (n=23 239) and statin nonusers (n=29 251). The primary outcome was incident HF. Cox proportional hazard models with competing risk regression were used to evaluate the risk of HF between statin users and nonusers. The median age of the cohort was 74.7 years, and 47.3% were women. Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, incident HF occurred in 3673 (15.8%) statin users and 5595 (19.1%) statin nonusers. Statin use was associated with a 19% lower risk of HF (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.78-0.85]). Restricted to the statin users, duration of statin use was measured during follow-up; compared with short-term use (3 months to <2 years), there was a stepwise reduction in the risk of incident HF among those with 2 to <4 years of statin use (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.84-0.88]), 4 to <6 years of statin use (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.72-0.76]), and ≥6 years of statin use (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.69-0.74]). Subgroup analysis showed consistent reductions in the risk of HF with statin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Statin use was associated with a decreased risk of incident HF in a duration-dependent manner among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Observational Study of the Association between Atrial Fibrillation and In-Hospital Mortality during Hospitalization for Solid Organ Transplants in Spain from 2004 to 2021

(1) Background: We analyzed the association between atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) and in-hospital mortality (IHM) among patients who underwent solid organ transplants in Spain from 2004 to 2021. (2) Methods: We gathered information from all hospital admissions for lung, liver, kidney, and heart transplants. (3) Results: A total of 71,827 transplants were analyzed (4598 lung transplants; 18,127 liver transplants; 45,262 kidney transplants; and 4734 heart transplants). One third of these were for women. Overall, the prevalence of AF was 6.8% and increased from 5.3% in 2004-2009 to 8.6% in 2016-2021. The highest prevalence of AF was found for heart transplants (24.0%), followed by lung transplants (14.7%). The rates for kidney and liver transplants were 5.3% and 4.1%, respectively. The AF code increased over time for all of the transplants analyzed (p < 0.001). The patients' IHM decreased significantly from 2004-2009 to 2016-2021 for all types of transplants. AF was associated with a higher IHM for all of the types of transplants analyzed, except for heart transplants. (4) Conclusions: The prevalence of AF among patients admitted for solid organ transplants was highest for those who underwent heart transplants. The mortality rate during the patients' admission for lung, liver, kidney, or heart transplants decreased over time. AF was independently associated with a higher risk of dying in the hospital for those who underwent lung, liver, or kidney transplants.

Discovering Distinct Phenotypical Clusters in Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: a Systematic Review

REVIEW PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to summarise clustering studies in heart failure (HF) and guide future clinical trial design and implementation in routine clinical practice.

FINDINGS

34 studies were identified (n = 19 in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). There was significant heterogeneity invariables and techniques used. However, 149/165 described clusters could be assigned to one of nine phenotypes: 1) young, low comorbidity burden; 2) metabolic; 3) cardio-renal; 4) atrial fibrillation (AF); 5) elderly female AF; 6) hypertensive-comorbidity; 7) ischaemic-male; 8) valvular disease; and 9) devices. There was room for improvement on important methodological topics for all clustering studies such as external validation and transparency of the modelling process. The large overlap between the phenotypes of the clustering studies shows that clustering is a robust approach for discovering clinically distinct phenotypes. However, future studies should invest in a phenotype model that can be implemented in routine clinical practice and future clinical trial design. HF = heart failure, EF = ejection fraction, HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, CKD = chronic kidney disease, AF = atrial fibrillation, IHD = ischaemic heart disease, CAD = coronary artery disease, ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy, NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide, BMI = Body Mass Index, COPD = Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on cerebro-cardiovascular outcome of heart failure with mildly-reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often co-exist and are closely intertwined. The impact of AF on the outcome of patients with heart failure with mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is not fully clear. This study aimed to investigate the impact of AF on the outcomes of hospitalized HFmrEF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study included 1691 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (mean 68.2 years, 64.8% male) including 296 AF patients. Patients completed 1 year and mean of 33 month clinical follow-up after discharge by telephone interview, clinical visit, or community visit. The primary endpoint was cerebro-cardiovascular events (CCE, composite of HF rehospitalization, stroke, or cardiovascular death). After propensity score matching, 296 patients were included into the AF group (mean 71.5 years) and 592 patients into the non-AF group (mean 70.6 years). After propensity score matching, CCE at 1 year (59.1% vs. 48.5%, P = 0.003) and at a mean of 33 month (77.0% vs. 70.6%, P = 0.043). AF was independently associated with increased CCE within 1 year (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.61, P = 0.010) and at 33 months (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.43, P = 0.050) post-discharge after adjusted for other clinical confounders including discharge heart rate, NT-proBNP, haemoglobin, and uric acid.

CONCLUSIONS

AF is independently associated with an increased risk of CCE in HFmrEF patients within 1 year and at a mean of 33 months after discharge.

Multimorbidity in Heart Failure: Leveraging Cluster Analysis to Guide Tailored Treatment Strategies

REVIEW PURPOSE

This review summarises key findings on treatment effects within phenotypical clusters of patients with heart failure (HF), making a distinction between patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

FINDINGS

Treatment response differed among clusters; ACE inhibitors were beneficial in all HFrEF phenotypes, while only some studies show similar beneficial prognostic effects in HFpEF patients. Beta-blockers had favourable effects in all HFrEF patients but not in HFpEF phenotypes and tended to worsen prognosis in older, cardiorenal patients. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists had more favourable prognostic effects in young, obese males and metabolic HFpEF patients. While a phenotype-guided approach is a promising solution for individualised treatment strategies, there are several aspects that still require improvements before such an approach could be implemented in clinical practice. Stronger evidence from clinical trials and real-world data may assist in establishing a phenotype-guided treatment approach for patient with HF in the future.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are highly prevalent cardiac disorders worldwide, and both are associated with poor prognosis. The incidence of AF and HF has been increasing substantially in recent years, mainly due to the progressive aging of the population. These disorders often coexist, and may have a causal relationship, with one contributing to the development or progression of the other. AF is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients, including mortality, hospitalization, and stroke. Although the optimal treatment for AF with HF remains unclear, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a promising treatment option. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of CA for managing AF in HF patients. In addition, the potential benefits and risks associated with CA are also discussed. We will also explore the factors that may influence treatment outcomes and highlight the remaining gaps in knowledge in this field.

NT-proBNP cut-off value for ruling out heart failure in atrial fibrillation patients - A prospective clinical study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements can be used to rule out heart failure in patients with sinus rhythm. Atrial fibrillation often coexists with heart failure but affects NT-proBNP levels. This study aims to identify the optimal NT-proBNP cut-off value for ruling out heart failure among atrial fibrillation patients.

METHODS

This prospective study included 409 atrial fibrillation patients admitted to the emergency department. The inclusion criterion was documented atrial fibrillation on a 12‑lead electrocardiogram. All patients completed a NT-proBNP blood sample, a chest X-ray and an echocardiogram. Heart failure was defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction of <40%.

RESULTS

In total, 409 patients were included (mean age: 75.2 ± 11.6). The median NT-proBNP level was 2577 ng/L (quartiles: 1185-5438) and 21% had heart failure. We found a lower median NT proBNP level of 3187 ± 3973 ng/L in patients without heart failure compared to 9254 ± 8008 ng/L in patients with heart failure (absolute difference: 4131, 95% (CI): 3299-4986, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for diagnosing heart failure was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.87). The optimal cut-off value for ruling out heart failure was 739 ng/L with a sensitivity of 99%, a specificity of 18%, and a negative predictive value of 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

NT-proBNP can be used to rule out heart failure in atrial fibrillation patients with a high negative predictive value, but low specificity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04125966. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04125966.

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.

Efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with low cardiac function has been previously reported; however, only a few studies have included mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 79 patients (reduced ejection fraction [rEF]/mrEF, 38/41; paroxysmal/persistent, 37/42; heart failure hospitalizations within one year before ablation, 36 [45.6%]) who underwent the first ablation procedure at our hospital from April 2017 to December 2021. Radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation were performed for 69 and 10 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Complications included pacemaker implantation for postoperative sick sinus syndrome in one patient and inguinal hematoma in one patient. Regarding efficacy, there were significant postoperative improvements in echocardiographic data, blood test values, and diuretic use. After a mean follow-up of 60 months, 86.1% patients had no AF recurrence. There were 9 heart failure hospitalizations (11.4%) and 5 all-cause deaths (6.3%); no significant differences were found between the rEF and mrEF groups. No significant predictors of AF recurrence were found in preoperative patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

AF ablation in patients with LVEF <50% significantly improved cardiac and renal functions with few complications, resulting in a high non-recurrence rate and reduced heart failure.

The risk of stroke recurrence in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and congestive heart failure often coexist due to their shared risk factors leading to potential worse outcome, particularly cerebrovascular events. The aims of this study were to calculate the rates of ischemic and severe bleeding events in ischemic stroke patients having both AF and reduced ejection fraction (rEF) (⩽40%), compared to ischemic stroke patients with AF but without rEF.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis that drew data from prospective studies. The primary outcome was the composite of either ischemic (stroke or systemic embolism), or hemorrhagic events (symptomatic intracranial bleeding and severe extracranial bleeding).

RESULTS

The cohort for this analysis comprised 3477 patients with ischemic stroke and AF, of which, 643 (18.3%) had also rEF. After a mean follow-up of 7.5 ± 9.1 months, 375 (10.8%) patients had 382 recorded outcome events, for an annual rate of 18.0%. While the number of primary outcome events in patients with rEF was 86 (13.4%), compared to 289 (10.2%) for the patients without rEF; on multivariable analysis rEF was not associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.84-1.88). At the end of follow-up, 321 (49.9%) patients with rEF were deceased or disabled (mRS ⩾3), compared with 1145 (40.4%) of those without rEF; on multivariable analysis, rEF was correlated with mortality or disability (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ischemic stroke and AF, the presence of rEF was not associated with the composite outcome of ischemic or hemorrhagic events over short-term follow-up but was associated with increased mortality or disability.

The Role of Galectin-3 in Heart Failure-The Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Potential-Where Do We Stand?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with high morbidity and mortality, and its prevalence is rapidly increasing. Galectin-3 (Gal-3) is an important factor in the pathophysiology of HF, mainly due to its role in cardiac fibrosis, inflammation, and ventricular remodeling. Fibrosis is a hallmark of cardiac remodeling, HF, and atrial fibrillation development. This review aims to explore the involvement of Gal-3 in HF and its role in the pathogenesis and clinical diagnostic and prognostic significance. We report data on Gal-3 structure and molecular mechanisms of biological function crucial for HF development. Over the last decade, numerous studies have shown an association between echocardiographic and CMR biomarkers in HF and Gal-3 serum concentration. We discuss facts and concerns about Gal-3's utility in acute and chronic HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction for diagnosis, prognosis, and risk stratification. Finally, we present attempts to use Gal-3 as a therapeutic target in HF.

Tic-Tac: A Translational Approach in Mechanisms Associated with Irregular Heartbeat and Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent cardiac condition predominantly affecting older adults, characterized by irregular heartbeat rhythm. The condition often leads to significant disability and increased mortality rates. Traditionally, two therapeutic strategies have been employed for its treatment: heart rate control and rhythm control. Recent clinical studies have emphasized the critical role of early restoration of sinus rhythm in improving patient outcomes. The persistence of the irregular rhythm allows for the progression and structural remodeling of the atria, eventually leading to irreversible stages, as observed clinically when AF becomes permanent. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm alters this progression pattern through mechanisms that are still being studied. In this review, we provide an in-depth analysis of the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for maintaining AF and how they are modified during sinus rhythm restoration using existing therapeutic strategies at different stages of clinical investigation. Moreover, we explore potential future therapeutic approaches, including the promising prospect of gene therapy.