Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure ∗

Regional Differences in the Epidemiology of Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) epidemiology, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes exhibit substantial regional variations, reflecting diverse etiologies and health system capacities. This review comprehensively analyses these variations, drawing on data from recent global registries and clinical trials. Our review indicates that ischemic and hypertensive heart diseases are prevalent globally but differ in dominance depending on the region. Notably, regions such as Africa and Latin America show higher instances of HF from hypertensive heart disease and Chagas cardiomyopathy, respectively. Moreover, disparities in age and comorbidity profiles across regions highlight younger populations with HF in lower-income countries compared to older populations in high-income regions. This review also highlights the global disparity in guideline-directed medical and device therapy, underscoring significant underuse in lower-income regions. These insights emphasize the need for targeted HF management strategies considering regional clinical and demographic characteristics to enhance global HF care and outcomes.

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.

Prognostic Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score <5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)).

Results

The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181).

Conclusion

The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

Reclassification of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Following Cardiac Sympathetic Nervous System Activation: A New Cutoff Value of 58

Heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome. An LVEF of 50% is widely used to categorize patients with HF; however, this is controversial. Previously, we have reported that patients with an LVEF of ≥ 58% have good prognoses. Further, cardiac sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activation is a feature of HF. In this retrospective, observational study, the cardiac SNS activity of HF patients (n = 63, age: 78.4 ± 9.6 years; male 49.2%) with LVEF ≥ 58% (n = 15) and LVEF < 58% (n = 48) were compared using 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. During the follow-up period (median, 3.0 years), 18 all-cause deaths occurred. The delayed heart/mediastinum (H/M) ratio was significantly higher in the LVEF ≥ 58% group than in the LVEF < 58% group (2.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.7 ± 0.4, p = 0.004), and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients in the former than those in the latter group (log-rank, p = 0.04). However, when these patients were divided into LVEF ≥ 50% (n = 22) and LVEF < 50% (n = 41) groups, no significant differences were found in the delayed H/M ratio, and the all-cause mortality did not differ between the groups (log-rank, p = 0.09). In conclusion, an LVEF of 58% is suitable for reclassifying patients with HF according to cardiac SNS activity.

Clinical Relevance of the LVEDD and LVESD Trajectories in HF Patients With LVEF < 35

Background

Certain variables reportedly are associated with a change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, literature describing the association between the recovery potential of LVEF and parameters of ventricular remodeling in echocardiography remains sparse.

Methods

We recruited 2,148 HF patients with LVEF < 35%. All patients underwent at least two echocardiographic images. The study aimed to compare LVEF alterations and their association with patient characteristics and echocardiographic findings.

Results

Patients with "recovery" of LVEF (follow-up LVEF ≥ 50%) were less likely to have prior myocardial infarction (MI), had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (Af), were less likely to have diabetes and hypertension, and had a smaller left atrium (LA) diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), both in crude and in adjusted models (adjustment for age and sex). LVEDD cutoff values of 59.5 mm in men and 52.5 mm in women and LVESD cutoff values of 48.5 mm in men and 46.5 mm in women showed a year-to-year increase in the rate of recovery (follow-up LVEF ≥ 50%)/improvement (follow-up LVEF ≥ 35%), p-value < 0.05 in Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative hazard curves.

Conclusions

Our study shows that LVEDD and LVESD increments in echocardiography can be predictors of changes in LVEF in in HF patients with LVEF < 35%. They may be used to identify patients who require more aggressive therapeutic interventions.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: strategies for disease management and emerging therapeutic approaches

Approximately 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the incidence of HFpEF is increasing relative to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Both types of HF are associated with reduced survival and increased risk for hospitalization. However, in contrast to HFrEF, there are no approved treatments specifically indicated for HFpEF, and current therapy is largely focused on management of symptoms and comorbidities. Diagnosis of HFpEF in the outpatient setting also presents unique challenges compared with HFrEF because of factors including a high burden of comorbidities in HFpEF and difficulties in distinguishing HFpEF from normal aging. Primary care providers (PCPs) play a pivotal role in the delivery of holistic, patient-centric care from diagnosis to management and palliative care. As the prevalence of HF continues to rise in an aging population, PCPs will need to play a greater role in HFpEF care. This article will review HFpEF etiology and pathophysiology, diagnostic workup, and management of symptoms and comorbidities, with a focus on the critical role of PCPs throughout the clinical course of HFpEF.

Prognostic value of the H2 FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of the H₂FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods and results

In this multicentre study, a total of 832 patients from two German high‐volume centres, who received TAVI for severe AS and preserved EF (≥50%), were identified for calculation of the H₂FPEF score. Patients were dichotomized according to low (0–5 points; n = 570) and high (6–9 points; n = 262) H₂FPEF scores. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess the prognostic impact of the H₂FPEF score. We observed a decrease in stroke volume index (−2.04 mL/m²/point) and mean transvalvular gradients (−1.14 mmHg/point) with increasing H₂FPEF score translating into a higher prevalence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS among patients with high H₂FPEF score. One year after TAVI, the rates of all‐cause (low vs. high H₂FPEF score: 8.0% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.0001) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (1.9% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.0001) as well as the rate of CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure (6.4% vs. 23.2%, P < 0.0001) were higher in patients with high H₂FPEF score compared with those with low H₂FPEF score. After multivariable analysis, a high H₂FPEF score remained independently predictive of all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.59 (1.28–2.35), P = 0.018] and CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure [hazard ratio 2.92 (1.65–5.15), P < 0.001]. Among the H₂FPEF score variables, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and elevated left ventricular filling pressure were the strongest outcome predictors.

Conclusions

The H₂FPEF score serves as an independent predictor of adverse CV and heart failure outcome among TAVI patients with preserved EF. A high H₂FPEF score is associated with the presence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS, the HFpEF in patients with AS. By identifying patients in advanced stages of HFpEF, the H₂FPEF score might be useful as a risk prediction tool in patients with preserved EF scheduled for TAVI.

Risk of bias in studies investigating novel diagnostic biomarkers for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A systematic review

Aim

Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the non‐acute setting remains challenging. Natriuretic peptides have limited value for this purpose, and a multitude of studies investigating novel diagnostic circulating biomarkers have not resulted in their implementation. This review aims to provide an overview of studies investigating novel circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF and determine their risk of bias (ROB).

Methods and results

A systematic literature search for studies investigating novel diagnostic HFpEF circulating biomarkers in humans was performed up until 21 April 2020. Those without diagnostic performance measures reported, or performed in an acute heart failure population were excluded, leading to a total of 28 studies. For each study, four reviewers determined the ROB within the QUADAS‐2 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. At least one domain with a high ROB was present in all studies. Use of case‐control/two‐gated designs, exclusion of difficult‐to‐diagnose patients, absence of a pre‐specified cut‐off value for the index test without the performance of external validation, the use of inappropriate reference standards and unclear timing of the index test and/or reference standard were the main bias determinants. Due to the high ROB and different patient populations, no meta‐analysis was performed.

Conclusion

The majority of current diagnostic HFpEF biomarker studies have a high ROB, reducing the reproducibility and the potential for clinical care. Methodological well‐designed studies with a uniform reference diagnosis are urgently needed to determine the incremental value of circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF.

Hypertension and Atrial Fibrillation: Doubts and Certainties From Basic and Clinical Studies

Hypertension and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 important public health priorities. Their prevalence is increasing worldwide, and the 2 conditions often coexist in the same patient. Hypertension and AF are strikingly related to an excess risk of cardiovascular disease and death. Hypertension ultimately increases the risk of AF, and because of its high prevalence in the population, it accounts for more cases of AF than other risk factors. Among patients with established AF, hypertension is present in about 60% to 80% of individuals. Despite the well-known association between hypertension and AF, several pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the higher risk of AF in hypertensive patients are still incompletely known. From an epidemiological standpoint, it is unclear whether the increasing risk of AF with blood pressure (BP) is linear or threshold. It is uncertain whether an intensive control of BP or the use of specific antihypertensive drugs, such as those inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, reduces the risk of subsequent AF in hypertensive patients in sinus rhythm. Finally, in spite of the observational evidence suggesting a progressive relation between BP levels and the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with hypertension and AF, the extent to which BP should be lowered in these patients, including those who undergo catheter ablation, remains uncertain. This article summarizes the main basic mechanisms through which hypertension is believed to promote AF. It also explores epidemiological data supporting an evolutionary pathway from hypertension to AF, including the emerging evidence favoring an intensive BP control or the use of drugs, which inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system to reduce the risk of AF. Finally, it examines the impact of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in relation to hypertension.