Prior Pacemaker Implantation and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Back to the basics: The need for an etiological classification of chronic heart failure

The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), despite its severe limitations, has had an epicentral role in heart failure (HF) classification, management, and risk stratification for decades. The major argument favoring the LVEF based HF classification has been that it defines groups of patients in which treatment is effective. However, this reasoning has recently collapsed, since medical treatment with neurohormonal inhibitors, has proved beneficial in most HF patients regardless of the LVEF. In addition, there has been compelling evidence, that the LVEF provides poor guidance for device treatment of chronic HF (implantation of cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy) since sudden cardiac death may occur and cardiac dyssynchronization may be disastrous in all HF patients. The same holds true for LV assist device implantation, in which the LVEF has been used as a surrogate for LV size. In this review article we update the evidence questioning the use of LVEF-based HF classification and argue that guidance of chronic HF treatment should transition to more contemporary concepts. Specifically, we propose an etiologic chronic HF classification predominantly based on epidemiological data, which will be foundational for further higher resolution phenotyping in the emerging era of precision medicine.

Adverse effects of right ventricular pacing on cardiac function: prevalence, prevention and treatment with physiologic pacing

Right ventricular (RV) pacing is the main treatment modality for patients with advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. Chronic RV pacing can cause cardiac systolic dysfunction and heart failure (HF). In this review, we discuss studies that have shown deleterious effects of chronic RV pacing on systolic cardiac function causing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM), heart failure (HF), HF hospitalization, atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac mortality. RV apical pacing is the most widely used and studied. Adverse effects of RV pacing appear to be directly related to pacing burden and are worse in patients with pre-existing left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Chronic RV pacing is also associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Mechanisms, risk factors, clinical and echocardiographic features, and strategies to minimize RV pacing-induced cardiac dysfunction are discussed in light of the latest data. Studies on biventricular (Bi-V) pacing upgrade in patients who develop RV PiCM, use of alternate RV pacing sites, de novo Bi-V pacing, and physiologic pacing using HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area (LBBA) pacing in patients with an anticipated high RV pacing burden are discussed.

Are arrhythmias the drivers of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? A review

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for approximately 25-30% of all-cause mortality and 40% of cardiovascular mortality in properly adjudicated large clinical trials. The mechanism of SCD in HFpEF remains unknown but thought to be driven by arrhythmic events. Apart from atrial fibrillation, which is prevalent in approximately 45% of HFpEF patients, the true burden of other cardiac arrhythmias in HFpEF remains undetermined. The incidence and risk of clinically significant advanced cardiac conduction disease with bradyarrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias remain less known. Recommendations have been made for long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and clarify mechanisms and mode of death in HFpEF patients. In animal studies, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD are significantly elevated in HFpEF animals compared with controls without heart failure. In humans, these studies are scant, with a few published small-size studies suggesting an increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in HFpEF. Higher rates of clinically significant conduction disease and cardiac pacing are seen in HFpEF compared with the general population. Excepting atrial fibrillation, the predictive effect of other arrhythmias on heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and precisely SCD remains unknown. Given the high occurrence of SCD in the HFpEF population, it could potentially become a target for therapeutic interventions if driven by arrhythmias. Studies to address these knowledge gaps are urgently warranted. In this review, we have summarized data on arrhythmias and SCD in HFpEF while highlighting avenues for future research in this area.

Remote monitoring in patients with heart failure with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is now the standard of care, but whether the demonstrated benefits of RM translate into improvements in heart failure (HF) management is controversial. This systematic review addresses the role of RM in patients with HF with a CIED.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search of the literature for randomised clinical trials in patients with HF and a CIED assessing efficacy/effectiveness of RM was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed and Embase. Meta-analysis was performed on the effects of RM of CIEDs in patients with HF on mortality and readmissions. Effects on implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy, healthcare costs and clinic presentations were also assessed.607 articles were identified and refined to 10 studies with a total of 6579 patients. Implementation of RM was not uniform with substantial variation in methodology across the studies. There was no reduction in mortality or hospital readmission rates, while ICD therapy findings were inconsistent. There was a reduction in patient-associated healthcare costs and reduction in healthcare presentations.

CONCLUSION

RM for patients with CIEDs and HF was not uniformly performed. As currently implemented, RM does not provide a benefit on overall mortality or the key metric of HF readmission. It does provide a reduction in healthcare costs and healthcare presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019129270.

The role of the gut microbiota in health and cardiovascular diseases

The gut microbiota is critical to human health, such as digesting nutrients, forming the intestinal epithelial barrier, regulating immune function, producing vitamins and hormones, and producing metabolites to interact with the host. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that the gut microbiota has a strong correlation with the occurrence, progression and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). In patients with CVDs and corresponding risk factors, the composition and ratio of gut microbiota have significant differences compared with their healthy counterparts. Therefore, gut microbiota dysbiosis, gut microbiota-generated metabolites, and the related signaling pathway may serve as explanations for some of the mechanisms about the occurrence and development of CVDs. Several studies have also demonstrated that many traditional and latest therapeutic treatments of CVDs are associated with the gut microbiota and its generated metabolites and related signaling pathways. Given that information, we summarized the latest advances in the current research regarding the effect of gut microbiota on health, the main cardiovascular risk factors, and CVDs, highlighted the roles and mechanisms of several metabolites, and introduced corresponding promising treatments for CVDs regarding the gut microbiota. Therefore, this review mainly focuses on exploring the role of gut microbiota related metabolites and their therapeutic potential in CVDs, which may eventually provide better solutions in the development of therapeutic treatment as well as the prevention of CVDs.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care: A joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Left bundle-branch block is associated with asimilar dyssynchronous phenotype in heart failure patients with normal and reduced ejection fractions

BACKGROUND

Few therapies improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). If left bundle-branch block (LBBB) is associated with left ventricular dyssynchrony and impaired cardiac performance in HFpEF, cardiac resynchronization therapy could be a promising treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of selected patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥50%) with and without LBBB (normal conduction, NC) and patients with HFrEF and LBBB who were suitable cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates to describe and contextualize the mechanical phenotype of LBBB in HFpEF. Systolic and diastolic isovolumic times, ejection time(ET), and diastolic filling time(DFT) were measured on spectral tissue Doppler echocardiographic images and indexed to the heart rate. Dyssynchrony pattern was assessed using speckle-tracked longitudinal strain patterns. Comparisons were performed using analysis of variance and χ² test with posthoc pairwise comparisons as indicated.

RESULTS

Eighty-two HFpEF (50 with NC, 32 with LBBB) and 149 HFrEF (all with LBBB) patients met criteria. Overall, 84.4% with HFpEF/LBBB and 91.3% with HFrEF/LBBB had demonstrable mechanical dyssynchrony compared to 0% with HFpEF/NC. Compared to HFpEF/NC, HFpEF/LBBB had significantly prolonged isovolumetric contraction time (ICT), isovolumetric relaxation time (IRT), and total isovolumetric time and significantly shorter ET (all indexed). LBBB/HFrEF patients, compared to LBBB/HFpEF patients, had increased ICT and IRT with decreased DFT but similar ET.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF and LBBB frequently have an LBBB dyssynchrony phenotype, prolonged ICT and IRT, and reduced ET compared to HFpEF patients with NC. The electromechanical dyssynchrony and disordered cardiac timing of HFpEF with LBBB are similar to HFrEF with LBBB.

Ventricular tachyarrhythmia detection by implantable loop recording in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: the VIP-HF study

AIMS

The primary aim of the VIP-HF study was to examine the incidence of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTs) in heart failure (HF) with mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Secondary aims were to examine the incidence of non-sustained VTs, bradyarrhythmias, HF hospitalizations and mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, observational study of patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%. Patients underwent extensive phenotyping, after which an implantable loop recorder was implanted. We enrolled 113 of the planned 250 patients [mean age 73 ± 8 years, 51% women, New York Heart Association class II/III 54%/46%, median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide 1367 (710-2452) pg/mL and mean LVEF 54 ± 6%; 75% had LVEF >50%]. Eighteen percent had non-sustained VTs and 37% had atrial fibrillation on Holter monitoring. During a median follow-up of 657 (219-748) days, the primary endpoint of sustained VT was observed in one patient. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.2-3.5) per 100 person-years. The incidence of the secondary endpoint of non-sustained VT was 11.5 (7.1-18.7) per 100 person-years. Five patients developed bradyarrhythmias [3.2 (1.4-7.5) per 100 person-years], three were implanted with a pacemaker. In total, 23 patients (20%) were hospitalized for HF [16.3 (10.9-24.4) per 100 person-years]. Fourteen patients (12%) died [8.7 (5.2-14.7) per 100 person-years]; 10 due to cardiovascular causes, and four sudden deaths, one with implantable loop recorder-confirmed bradyarrhythmias as terminal event, three others undetermined.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lower than expected number of included patients, the incidence of sustained VTs in HFmrEF/HFpEF was low. Clinically relevant bradyarrhythmias were more often observed than expected.

Adverse Cardiac Remodelling after Acute Myocardial Infarction: Old and New Biomarkers

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) due to cardiac remodelling after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) does not decrease regardless of implementation of new technologies supporting opening culprit coronary artery and solving of ischemia-relating stenosis with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Numerous studies have examined the diagnostic and prognostic potencies of circulating cardiac biomarkers in acute coronary syndrome/AMI and heart failure after AMI, and even fewer have depicted the utility of biomarkers in AMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Although complete revascularization at early period of acute coronary syndrome/AMI is an established factor for improved short-term and long-term prognosis and lowered risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications, late adverse cardiac remodelling may be a major risk factor for one-year mortality and postponded heart failure manifestation after PCI with subsequent blood flow resolving in culprit coronary artery. The aim of the review was to focus an attention on circulating biomarker as a promising tool to stratify AMI patients at high risk of poor cardiac recovery and developing HF after successful PCI. The main consideration affects biomarkers of inflammation, biomechanical myocardial stress, cardiac injury and necrosis, fibrosis, endothelial dysfunction, and vascular reparation. Clinical utilities and predictive modalities of natriuretic peptides, cardiac troponins, galectin 3, soluble suppressor tumorogenicity-2, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, growth differential factor-15, midregional proadrenomedullin, noncoding RNAs, and other biomarkers for adverse cardiac remodelling are discussed in the review.

Network meta-analysis of His bundle, biventricular, or right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for advanced atrioventricular conduction disease with normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) may impair ventricular function, it is commonly used for advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) and normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF). We aimed to compare His bundle pacing (HBP), biventricular pacing (BiVP), and RVP for advanced AVB in patients with normal or mildly reduced EF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Outcomes were all-cause death, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH), EF, left ventricular volumes, 6-minute walk test, and QRS duration. HBP or BiVP was compared with RVP. Subsequently, network meta-analysis compared the three pacing options. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018094132). Six studies compared BiVP and RVP (704 vs 614 patients) and four compared HBP and RVP (463 vs 568 patients). Follow-up was 6 months to 5 years. There was significantly lower mortality and HFH with HBP or BiVP as compared with RVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.66, [0.51-0.85], P = .002; OR, 0.61 [0.45-0.82], P < .001, respectively]. HBP or BiVP also showed significant increase in EF and decrease in QRS duration (mean difference [MD], 5.27 [3.86-6.69], P < .001; MD -42.2 [-51.2 to -33.3], P < .001, respectively). In network meta-analysis, HBP and BiVP were associated with significantly improved survival compared to RVP, with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability of 79.4%, 69.4%, and 1.2% for HBP, BiVP, and RVP, respectively. For HFH, SUCRA probability was 91.5%, 57.2%, and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBP or BiVP were the superior strategies to reduce all-cause death and HFH for advanced AVB with normal or mildly reduced EF, with no significant difference between BiVP and HBP.