Stroke and Thromboembolism in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm: A Matter of Risk Stratification?

Relationship between Brain Natriuretic Peptide and Thromboembolic Events in Elderly Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Objective

To investigate the relationship between brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and thromboembolic events in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study, and based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 180 elderly patients with NVAF were included. The patients received follow-up appointments in the clinic or by telephone every 6 months after the beginning of the study. The primary follow-up endpoints were thromboembolic and atherosclerotic events, including ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism. The secondary endpoints were adverse events, including cardiovascular death, all-cause death, and hospitalisation for heart failure. Patients were divided into three groups according to their BNP level at admission: group A (BNP ≤334.5 pg/mL), group B (BNP = 334.5-1,288 pg/mL), and group C (BNP ≥1,288 pg/mL).

Results

A total of 180 patients were enrolled in this study, with 50 patients in group A, 68 in group B, and 62 in group C. Compared with groups A and B, group C had a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (Z = 15.142; P=0.001) and a lower ejection fraction (EF) value (Z = 119.893; P=0.001). The left atrium (LA) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) were larger (Z = 105.031; P=0.001 and Z = 74.430; P=0.001), respectively, suggesting that patients with significantly increased BNP had a higher risk of thromboembolism and atherosclerosis, lower EF, larger LA and LVEDD, and worse cardiac function. After 1 year of follow-up, the incidence of primary endpoint events (χ2 = 9.556; P=0.008) and secondary endpoint events (χ2 = 59.485; P=0.001) in group C were higher than those in groups A and B.

Conclusion

Higher BNP levels may be an independent risk factor for thromboembolic and atherosclerotic events in elderly patients with NVAF. The higher the BNP level, the greater the risk of thromboembolic and atherosclerotic events.

Association of intravenous heparin administration with in-hospital clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with acute heart failure

BACKGROUNDS

Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) possess a high risk for thromboembolism, and thromboembolism prophylaxis using heparin has been recommended by the guidelines.

METHODS

Among 4056 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, the current study population consisted of 2525 patients after excluding patients with acute coronary syndrome and oral anticoagulants on admission and those with mechanical circulatory supports. There were 789 patients (31%) with heparin administration within 24 h after admission, and 1736 patients (69%) without.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics included mean age: 78 ± 13 years, New York Heart Association class IV: 51%, ischemic etiology: 30%, atrial fibrillation: 31% and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 45%. During median hospitalization length of 16 days, 161 patients had all-cause death, 34 patients developed ischemic stroke, and 48 patients developed major bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that heparin administration compared with no heparin administration was not associated with a lower risk for all-cause death (OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 0.90-2.15; P = 0.14), nor for ischemic stroke (OR: 1.14, 95%CI: 0.53-2.43; P = 0.74), but was associated with a higher risk for major bleeding (OR: 2.88, 95%CI: 1.54-5.41; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHF, heparin administration within 24 h after admission was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death and ischemic stroke, but was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding during hospitalization. Our study raises questions about the routine use of heparin for thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with AHF. Further studies are warranted to address the utility of anticoagulant therapy in these patients.

Outcomes associated with antithrombotic strategies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm following acute ischemic stroke

Purpose

Insufficient data exist regarding the benefit of long-term antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with ischemic stroke and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Therefore, this study aimed to compare longitudinal outcomes associated with antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant use in a cohort of patients with stroke and with an ejection fraction of ≤40%.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed single-center registry data (2015-2021) of patients with ischemic stroke, HFrEF, and sinus rhythm. Time to the primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and was compared between patients treated using anticoagulation (±antiplatelet) vs. antiplatelet therapy alone after propensity score matching using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, with adjustment for residual measurable confounders. Sensitivity analyses included the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using ITT and as-treated approaches without propensity score matching.

Results

Of 2,974 screened patients, 217 were included in the secondary analyses, with 130 patients matched according to the propensity score for receiving anticoagulation treatment for the primary analysis, spanning 143 patient-years of follow-up. After propensity score matching, there was no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-2.17]. Non-White race (HR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.16-4.41) and the presence of intracranial occlusion (HR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.40-5.83) were independently associated with the primary outcome, while hypertension was inversely associated (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.84). There remained no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In HFrEF patients with an acute stroke, there was no difference in outcomes of antithrombotic strategies. While this study was limited by non-randomized treatment allocation, the results support future trials of stroke patients with HFrEF which may randomize patients to anticoagulation or antiplatelet.

Predicting stroke in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction without atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91).

CONCLUSION

It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.