Prevention of and medical therapy for atrial arrhythmias in heart failure

Should β-blockers be used in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation?

PURPOSE

There is overwhelming evidence that β-blockers reduce cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality in patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction provide they are in sinus rhythm. However, a recent meta-analysis of individual patient data provides compelling evidence that β-blockers are not effective in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, although neither did they increase risk. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence, seek possible explanations for this observation, and make recommendations based on the limited evidence available.

METHODS

Review and critical analysis of recent publications and meta-analyses on the use of β-blockers and other heart rate-slowing medicines in heart failure.

FINDINGS

The reasons for the lack of effect of β-blockers in patients with heart failure are uncertain. There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation who have less stringent ventricular rate control have a better outcome. The most plausible explanation for these findings, in our view, is that β-blockers exert similar benefits through similar mechanisms regardless of intrinsic heart rhythm but that the benefits of β-blockers are neutralized in patients with atrial fibrillation due to the induction of pauses that may impair cardiac function leading to worsening heart failure or cause arrhythmias resulting in death.

IMPLICATIONS

Smaller doses of β-blockers and other rate lowering agents to achieve a resting clinic heart rate in the range of 75-89beats/min might improve outcome. Preventing pauses by pacing or pulmonary vein ablation of atrial fibrillation are strategies that should be researched.

The effect of carvedilol on B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac function in patients with heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the relationship between changes in natriuretic peptides and symptoms as a consequence of introducing beta-blocker therapy, in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 47 patients with CHF and persistent AF (mean age 68 years and 62% men), we analysed the individual change (Δ) in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level to the introduction of carvedilol (titrated to a target dose of 25 mg twice daily, group A) or placebo (group B) in addition to background treatment with digoxin. Symptoms score, 6-min walk distance, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart rate (24-hour ECG) and BNP were measured at baseline and at 4 months.

RESULTS

LVEF (Δ median +5 vs. +0.4, p = 0.048), symptoms score (Δ median -4 vs. 0, p = 0.04), NYHA class (Δ median -33% vs. +3% in NYHA class 3-4, p = 0.046) and heart rate [Δ median 24-hour ventricular rate (VR) -19 vs. -2, p < 0.0001] improved with combination therapy of digoxin and carvedilol compared to digoxin alone, but BNP (Δ median +28 vs. -6 , p = 0.11) trended in the opposite direction. There was no relationship between the degree of symptomatic improvement or VR control and BNP response.

CONCLUSION

After the introduction of carvedilol, clinical outcome appears unrelated to BNP changes in patients with CHF and AF. Changes in BNP cannot be used as a marker of clinical response in terms of symptoms or cardiac function in this setting.

The atrial fibrillation paradox of heart failure

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) is high, but longitudinal studies suggest that the incidence of AF is relatively low. The authors investigated this paradox prospectively in an epidemiologically representative population of patients with HF and persistent AF. In all, 891 consecutive patients with HF [mean age, 70+/-10 years; 70% male; left ventricular ejection fraction, 32%+/-9%] were enrolled. The prevalence of persistent AF at baseline was 22%. The incidence of persistent AF at 1 year was 26 per 1000 person-years, ranging from 15 in New York Heart Association class I/II to 44 in class III/IV. AF occurred either at the same time or prior to HF in 76% of patients and following HF in 24%. A risk score was developed to predict the occurrence of persistent AF. The annual risk of persistent AF developing was 0.5% (0%-1.3%) for those in the low-risk group compared with 15% (3.4%-26.6%) in the high-risk group. Despite a high prevalence of persistent AF in patients with HF, the incidence of persistent AF is relatively low. This is predominantly due to AF coinciding with or preceding the development of HF. The annual risk of persistent AF developing can be estimated from clinical variables.

Economic impact of the reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure treated with enalapril

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of heart failure (HF) is linked to embolic stroke and exacerbation of HF. The rate of new-onset AF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and mild to moderate HF enrolled in the SoLVD trials was significantly lower with enalapril than with placebo (5.4% vs 24% over 2.9 years, P < .0001). The objective of this study was to predict economic benefits over 5 and 10 years of reduced AF incidence in patients receiving enalapril for the treatment of HF from a Canadian third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

Consequences of reduced incidence of AF in enalapril-treated patients were modeled using a Markov model. Patients were assigned to 1 health state: no AF, AF, poststroke, or death, and moved from one state to the other according to published incidence rates. It was assumed that most patients with AF would receive warfarin for stroke prevention. Resource use and costs were mostly retrieved from published Canadian studies.

RESULTS

Reduced incidence of AF resulted in savings of 382 dollars and 525 dollars per patient treated with enalapril over 5 and 10 years, respectively, which stemmed mainly from reduced AF hospitalization and less need for warfarin and amiodarone. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that enalapril becomes more cost saving as the baseline risk for embolic stroke in patients with AF increases and the use of warfarin prophylaxis decreases.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced incidence of AF with enalapril leads to significant clinical and economic advantages on top of the already well-established benefits of enalapril for patients with HF.

Predictors of atrial antitachycardia pacing efficacy in patients affected by brady-tachy form of sick sinus syndrome and implanted with a DDDRP device

Predictors of ATP efficacy in brady/tachy patients.

BACKGROUND

Recent options to treat atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATA) include implantable devices delivering antitachycardia pacing therapies (ATP). No prospective study selected patients with higher chances of episode termination by ATP or indicated the most effective ATP use. Our aim was to study ATP efficacy in patients with brady-tachy form of sinus node disease (SND), identifying clinical factors, ATA characteristics, and device features predicting ATP efficacy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred and sixteen patients (105 M, aged 71.1+/-8.8 years) received a DDDRP pacemaker and were prospectively followed. Median follow-up was 18 months: 37,125 ATA episodes occurred in 217 patients; ATP treated 5,536 of them. Overall, ATP efficacy was 50.0%. A multivariate analysis identified longer arrhythmia cycle lengths (OR=1.25; CI=1.07-1.47) and shorter delays to ATP delivery (OR=0.15; CI=0.10-0.22) as independent predictors of ATP efficacy for episodes preceded by >or=5 minutes of sinus rhythm. Additionally, ATP efficacy for all treated episodes was predicted by lower New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (OR=0.64; CI=0.42-0.98), episode classification as nonimmediate recurrence of ATA (non-IRAT) (OR=0.07; CI=0.02-0.33), absence of overlap in the device detection windows (OR=0.54; CI=0.32-0.91), and flecainide treatment (OR=2.22; CI=1.04-4.71).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients paced for SND, multivariate analysis shows that ATP efficacy is associated to longer arrhythmia cycle lengths, shorter ATP delivery delays, NYHA class I, episode classification as non-IRAT, absence of overlap in the atrial arrhythmia device detection windows, and flecainide treatment.

Rate control in atrial fibrillation: choice of treatment and assessment of efficacy

The clinical relevance and high social costs of atrial fibrillation have boosted interest in rate control as a cost-effective alternative to long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm (i.e. rhythm control). Prospective studies show that rate control (coupled with thromboembolic prophylaxis) is a valuable treatment option for all forms of atrial fibrillation. The rationale for rate control is that high ventricular rates, frequently found in atrial fibrillation, lead to haemodynamic impairment, consisting of a variable combination of loss of atrial kick, irregularity in ventricular response and inappropriately rapid ventricular rate, depending on the type of underlying heart disease. Long-term persistence of tachycardia at a high ventricular rate can lead to various degrees of ventricular dysfunction and even to tachycardiomyopathy-related heart failure. Identification of this reversible and often concealed form of left ventricular dysfunction can permit effective management by rate (or rhythm) control. Although acute rate control (to reduce ventricular rate within hours) is still often based on digoxin administration, for patients without left ventricular dysfunction, calcium channel antagonists or beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) are generally more appropriate and effective. In chronic atrial fibrillation, long-term rate control (to reduce morbidity/mortality and improve quality of life) must be adapted to patients' individual characteristics to grant control during daily activities, including exercise. According to current guidelines, the clinical target of rate control should be a ventricular rate below 80-90 bpm at rest. However, in many patients, assessment of the appropriateness of different drugs should include exercise testing and 24h-Holter monitoring, for which specific guidelines are needed. In practice, rate control is considered a valid alternative to rhythm control. Recent prospective trials (e.g. the Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation [PIAF] and the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management [AFFIRM] trials) have shown that in selected patients, rate control provides similar benefits, more economically, in terms of quality of life and long-term mortality. The choice of a rate control medication (digoxin, beta-blockers, calcium channel antagonists or possibly amiodarone) or a non-pharmacological approach (mainly atrioventricular node ablation coupled with pacing) must currently be based on clinical assessment, which includes assessing the presence of underlying heart disease and haemodynamic impairment. Definite guidelines are required for each different subset of patients. Rate control is particularly tricky in patients with heart failure, for whom non-pharmacological options can also be considered. The preferred pharmacological options are beta-blockers for stabilised heart failure and digoxin for unstabilised forms.