Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure

The effect of antiarrhythmic medications on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

While current guidelines recommend amiodarone and dronedarone for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD), there was no comparative study of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on the cardiovascular outcomes in general practice.

METHODS

This study included patients with AF and CAD who received their first prescription of amiodarone, class Ic AADs (flecainide, propafenone), dronedarone or sotalol between January 2016 and December 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and cardiovascular death. We used Cox proportional regression models, including with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), to estimate the relationship between AADs and cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the AF cohort consisting of 8752 patients, 1996 individuals had CAD, including 477 who took dronedarone and 1519 who took other AADs. After a median follow-up of 38 months, 46.3% of patients who took dronedarone and 54.4% of patients who took other AADs experienced cardiovascular events. Compared to dronedarone, the use of other AADs was associated with increased cardiovascular events after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio [HR] 1.531, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.112-2.141, p = 0.023) and IPTW (HR 1.491, 95% CI 1.174-1.992, p = 0.012). The secondary analysis showed that amiodarone and class Ic drugs were associated with an increased risk of HHF. The low number of subjects in the sotalol group limits data interpretation.

CONCLUSION

For patients with AF and CAD, dronedarone was associated with better cardiovascular outcomes than other AADs. Amiodarone and class Ic AADs were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, particularly HHF.

RIPPLE-VT study: Multicenter prospective evaluation of ventricular tachycardia substrate ablation by targeting scar channels to eliminate latest scar potentials without direct ablation

BACKGROUND

Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be treated by substrate modification of the myocardial scar by catheter ablation during sinus rhythm without VT induction. Better defining this arrhythmic substrate could help improve outcome and reduce ablation burden.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to limit ablation within postinfarction scar to conduction channels within the scar to reduce VT recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing catheter ablation for recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for postinfarction VT were recruited at 5 centers. Left ventricular maps were collected on CARTO using a Pentaray catheter. Ripple mapping was used to categorize infarct scar potentials (SPs) by timing. Earliest SPs were ablated sequentially until there was loss of the terminal SPs without their direct ablation. The primary outcome measure was sustained VT episodes as documented by device interrogations at 1 year, which was compared with VT episodes in the year before ablation.

RESULTS

The study recruited 50 patients (mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 33% ± 9%), and 37 patients (74%) met the channel ablation end point with successful loss of latest SPs without direct ablation. There were 16 recurrences during 1-year follow-up. There was a 90% reduction in VT burden from 30.2 ± 53.9 to 3.1 ± 7.5 (P < .01) per patient, with a concomitant 88% reduction in appropriate shocks from 2.1 ± 2.7 to 0.2 ± 0.9 (P < .01). There were 8 deaths during follow-up. Those who met the channel ablation end point had no significant difference in mortality, recurrence, or VT burden but had a significantly lower ablation burden of 25.7 ± 4.2 minutes vs 39.9 ± 6.1 minutes (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Scar channel ablation is feasible by ripple mapping and can be an alternative to more extensive substrate modification techniques.

Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice timely and fully, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2‑VASc‑60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of the Asian AF population. The guidelines also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

Cardioembolic Stroke: Past Advancements, Current Challenges, and Future Directions

Cardioembolic stroke accounts for over 20% of ischemic strokes and is associated with worse outcomes than other types of strokes. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common risk factor for cardioembolic stroke. In this narrative review, we present an update about cardioembolic stroke mainly related to AF and atrial cardiopathy. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have revolutionized stroke prevention in patients with AF; however, their efficacy in preventing recurrent embolic stroke of unknown source remains uncertain. Various cardiac monitoring methods are used to detect AF, which is crucial for preventing stroke recurrence. DOACs are preferred over warfarin for AF-related stroke prevention; however, the timing of initiation after acute ischemic stroke is debated. Resuming anticoagulation after intracerebral hemorrhage in AF patients requires careful assessment of the risks. While catheter ablation may reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, its effect on stroke prevention is unclear, especially in heart failure patients. Atrial cardiopathy is the emerging cause of embolic stroke of unknown source, which indicates atrial structural and functional disorders that can precede AF. Future research should focus on refining stroke risk prediction models, optimizing AF detection, understanding the roles of ablation and anticoagulation in stroke prevention, and establishing atrial cardiopathy as a therapeutic target, which could significantly reduce the burden of stroke.

Dronedarone for the Treatment of Atrial Arrhythmias in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common and difficult to treat in adults with congenital heart disease. Dronedarone has proven effective in patients without congenital heart disease, but data are limited about its use in adults with congenital heart disease of moderate to great complexity.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective chart review of 21 adults with congenital heart disease of moderate to great complexity who were treated with dronedarone for atrial tachyarrhythmias was performed.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) age at dronedarone initiation was 35 (27.5-39) years. Eleven patients (52%) were male. Ten patients (48%) had New York Heart Association class I disease, 10 (48%) had class II disease, and 1 (5%) had class III disease. Ejection fraction at initiation was greater than 55% in 11 patients (52%), 35% to 55% in 9 patients (43%), and less than 35% in 1 patient (5%). Prior treatments included β-blockers (71%), sotalol (38%), amiodarone (24%), digoxin (24%), and catheter ablation (38%). Rhythm control was complete in 5 patients (24%), partial in 6 (29%), and inadequate in 10 (48%). Two patients (10%) experienced adverse events, including nausea in 1 (5%) and cardiac arrest in 1 (5%), which occurred 48 months after initiation of treatment. There were no deaths during the follow-up period. The median (IQR) follow-up time for patients with complete or partial rhythm control was 20 (1-54) months.

CONCLUSION

Dronedarone can be effective for adult patients with congenital heart disease and atrial arrhythmias for whom more established therapies have failed, and with close monitoring it can be safely tolerated.

Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice in a timely and comprehensive manner, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of the Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of the Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering have jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines have comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2-VASc-60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of AF in the Asian population. The guidelines have also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

ent-Verticilide B1 Inhibits Type 2 Ryanodine Receptor Channels and is Antiarrhythmic in Casq2 -/- Mice

Intracellular Ca2+ leak from cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) is an established mechanism of sudden cardiac death (SCD), whereby dysregulated Ca2+ handling causes ventricular arrhythmias. We previously discovered the RyR2-selective inhibitor ent-(+)-verticilide (ent-1), a 24-membered cyclooligomeric depsipeptide that is the enantiomeric form of a natural product (nat-(-)-verticilide). Here, we examined its 18-membered ring-size oligomer (ent-verticilide B1; "ent-B1") in RyR2 single channel and [3H]ryanodine binding assays, and in Casq2 -/- cardiomyocytes and mice, a gene-targeted model of SCD. ent-B1 inhibited RyR2 single channels and RyR2-mediated spontaneous Ca2+ release in Casq2 -/- cardiomyocytes with sub-micromolar potency. ent-B1 was a partial RyR2 inhibitor, with maximal inhibitory efficacy of less than 50%. ent-B1 was stable in plasma, with a peak plasma concentration of 1460 ng/ml at 10 minutes and half-life of 45 minutes after intraperitoneal administration of 3 mg/kg in mice. In vivo, ent-B1 significantly reduced catecholamine-induced ventricular arrhythmias in Casq2 -/- mice in a dose-dependent manner. Hence, we have identified a novel chemical entity - ent-B1 - that preserves the mechanism of action of a hit compound and shows therapeutic efficacy. These findings strengthen RyR2 as an antiarrhythmic drug target and highlight the potential of investigating the mirror-image isomers of natural products to discover new therapeutics. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) is an untapped target in the stagnant field of antiarrhythmic drug development. We have confirmed RyR2 as an antiarrhythmic target in a mouse model of sudden cardiac death and shown the therapeutic efficacy of a second enantiomeric natural product.

Atrial fibrillation: better symptom control with rate and rhythm management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with limiting symptoms, and with significant impairment in quality of life. As such, treatment strategies aimed at symptom control form an important pillar of AF management. Such treatments include a wide variety of drugs and interventions, including, increasingly, catheter ablation. These strategies can be utilised either singly or in combination, to improve and restore quality of life for patients, and this review covers the current evidence base underpinning their use. In this Review, we discuss the pros and cons of rate vs. rhythm control, while offering practical tips to non-specialists on how to utilise various treatments and counsel patients about all relevant treatment options. These include antiarrhythmic and rate control medications, as well as interventions such as cardioversion, catheter ablation, and pace-and-ablate.

Antiarrhythmic Treatment in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arrhythmias are common in patients with heart failure (HF) and are associated with a significant risk of mortality and morbidity. Optimal antiarrhythmic treatment is therefore essential. Here, we review current approaches to antiarrhythmic treatment in patients with HF.

RECENT FINDINGS

In atrial fibrillation, rhythm control and ventricular rate control are accepted therapeutic strategies. In recent years, clinical trials have demonstrated a prognostic benefit of early rhythm control strategies and AF catheter ablation, especially in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Prevention of sudden cardiac death with ICD therapy is essential, but optimal risk stratification is challenging. For ventricular tachycardias, recent data support early consideration of catheter ablation. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is an adjunctive therapy in symptomatic patients but has no prognostic benefit and well-recognized (proarrhythmic) adverse effects. Antiarrhythmic therapy in HF requires a systematic, multimodal approach, starting with guideline-directed medical therapy for HF and integrating pharmacological, device, and interventional therapy.

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.

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 Patients With 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.

Interventional Management of Atrial Fibrillation in the Chronic Heart Failure Population

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) synergistically interact to exacerbate each other. However, treatment of one entity can greatly improve management of the other. Although historically, permissive medical therapy was the mainstay of AF management in the HF population, recent data strongly favor early, often invasive, intervention for AF to reduce hard HF outcomes. It seems that intervening earlier in the time course of AF, though still not excluding persistent AF from treatment, may have more pronounced effects.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation in the outpatient setting

With burgeoning evidence for early rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the management of AF in the outpatient setting has become more challenging. The primary care clinician often serves as the frontline in the pharmacologic management of AF. Because of drug interactions and the risk of proarrhythmia, many clinicians remain hesitant about the initiation and chronic management of antiarrhythmic drug prescriptions. However, with the likely increased use of antiarrhythmics for early rhythm control, understanding and familiarity with these medications have likewise become more important, especially since patients with AF probably have other non-cardiac medical conditions that can impact their antiarrhythmic therapy. In this comprehensive review, we provide informative, high-yield cases and edifying references that will help primary care providers become comfortable handling various clinical scenarios.

The impact of catheter ablation in patient's heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent trial data suggest a benefit to catheter ablation (CA) compared to medical therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, because of mixed trial evidence, contemporary guidelines give it a class 2 recommendation. Accordingly, we sought to assess the currently available evidence for CA in HF with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CA to medical therapy in patients with AF and HF. Study data was pooled using fixed and random effects, and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated to gauge absolute risk differences. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Nine trials (CA 1075 patients; medical therapy 1083 patients) were included. Ablation reduced the relative risk of all-cause mortality by 31.5% (95% CI 13.7 to 45.6%; NNT = 23), cardiovascular mortality by 39.3% (95% CI 10.9 to 58.7%; NNT = 31), cardiovascular hospitalization by 29.1% (95% CI 9.4 to 44.6%; NNT = 9), and heart failure hospitalization by 28.5% (95% CI 6.5 to 45.4%; NNT = 22). Improvements in quality of life were observed with CA using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference - 5.26; 95% CI - 2.73 to - 7.78) and the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (mean difference 5.36; 95% CI 2.72 to 8.00).

CONCLUSION

Compared to medical therapy, CA for AF in patients with HF reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations, and may improve quality of life.

Managing arrhythmia in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Arrhythmia is an extremely common finding in patients receiving cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Despite this, in the majority of randomised trials testing CRT efficacy, patients with a recent history of arrhythmia were excluded. Most of our knowledge into the management of arrhythmia in CRT is therefore based on arrhythmia trials in the heart failure (HF) population, rather than from trials dedicated to the CRT population. However, unique to CRT patients is the aim to reach as close to 100% biventricular pacing (BVP) as possible, with HF outcomes greatly influenced by relatively small changes in pacing percentage. Thus, in comparison to the average HF patient, there is an even greater incentive for controlling arrhythmia, to achieve minimal interference with the effective delivery of BVP. In this review, we examine both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, addressing their impact on CRT, and discuss the available evidence regarding optimal arrhythmia management in this patient group. We review pharmacological and procedural-based approaches, and lastly explore novel ways of harnessing device data to guide treatment of arrhythmia in CRT.

ent -Verticilide B1 inhibits type 2 ryanodine receptor channels and is antiarrhythmic in Casq2-/- mice

Ca 2+ leak from cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) is an established mechanism of sudden cardiac death (SCD), whereby dysregulated Ca 2+ handling causes ventricular arrhythmias. We previously discovered the RyR2-selective inhibitor ent- (+)-verticilide ( ent -1), a 24-membered cyclooligomeric depsipeptide that is the enantiomeric form of a natural product ( nat -(-)-verticilide). Here, we examined its 18-membered ring-size oligomer ( ent -verticilide B1; " ent -B1") in single RyR2 channel assays, [ 3 H]ryanodine binding assays, and in Casq2 -/- cardiomyocytes and mice, a gene-targeted model of SCD. ent -B1 inhibited RyR2 single-channels and [ 3 H]ryanodine binding with low micromolar potency, and RyR2-mediated spontaneous Ca 2+ release in Casq2-/- cardiomyocytes with sub-micromolar potency. ent -B1 was a partial RyR2 inhibitor, with maximal inhibitory efficacy of less than 50%. ent -B1 was stable in plasma, with a peak plasma concentration of 1460 ng/ml at 10 min and half-life of 45 min after intraperitoneal administration of 3 mg/kg in mice. Both 3 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg ent -B1 significantly reduced catecholamine-induced ventricular arrhythmia in Casq2-/- mice. Hence, we have identified a novel chemical entity - ent -B1 - that preserves the mechanism of action of a hit compound and shows therapeutic efficacy. These findings strengthen RyR2 as an antiarrhythmic drug target and highlight the potential of investigating the mirror-image isomers of natural products to discover new therapeutics.

Significance statement

The cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) is an untapped target in the stagnant field of antiarrhythmic drug development. We have confirmed RyR2 as an antiarrhythmic target in a mouse model of sudden cardiac death and shown the therapeutic efficacy of a second enantiomeric natural product.

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation concomitantly treated with antiarrhythmic drugs and non-vitamin k antagonist oral anticoagulants

AIMS

Limited data compared antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) with concomitant non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients, hence the aim of the study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

National health insurance database were retrieved during 2012-17 for study. We excluded patients not taking AADs, bradycardia, heart block, heart failure admission, mitral stenosis, prosthetic valve, incomplete demographic data, and follow-up <3 months. Outcomes were compared in Protocol 1, dronedarone vs. non-dronedarone; Protocol 2, dronedarone vs. amiodarone; and Protocol 3, dronedarone vs. propafenone. Outcomes were acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (including AMI, ischaemic stroke, and cardiovascular death). In Protocol 1, 2298 dronedarone users and 6984 non-dronedarone users (amiodarone = 4844; propafenone = 1914; flecainide = 75; sotalol = 61) were analysed. Dronedarone was associated with lower ICH (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.99, P = 0.0436), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.16-0.37, P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27-0.42, P < 0.0001), and MACE (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.45-0.70, P < 0.0001). In Protocol 2, 2231 dronedarone users and 6693 amiodarone users were analysed. Dronedarone was associated with significantly lower ICH (HR = 0.53, 95%=CI 0.33-0.84, P = 0.0078), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.13-0.31, P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22-0.34, P < 0.0001), and MACE (HR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.43-0.66, P < 0.0001), compared with amiodarone. In Protocol 3, 812 dronedarone users and 2436 propafenone users were analysed. There were no differences between two drugs for primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of dronedarone with NOACs was associated with cardiovascular benefits in an Asian population, compared with non-dronedarone AADs and amiodarone.

Proarrhythmia associated with antiarrhythmic drugs: a comprehensive disproportionality analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system

Objective: This study aimed to identify the different associations between antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and arrhythmias, and to determine whether pharmacokinetic drug interactions involving AADs increase the risk of AAD-related arrhythmias compared to using AADs alone. Materials and methods: The disproportionality analysis of AAD-associated cardiac arrhythmias, including AAD monotherapies and concomitant use of pharmacokinetic interacting agents involving AADs, was conducted by using reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC) as detection of potential safety signals based on FAERS data from January 2016 to June 2022. We compared the clinical features of patients reported with AAD-associated arrhythmias between fatal and non-fatal groups, and further investigated the onset time (TTO) following different AAD regimens. Results: A total of 11754 AAD-associated cardiac arrhythmias reports were identified, which was more likely to occur in the elderly (52.17%). Significant signals were detected between cardiac arrhythmia and all AAD monotherapies, with ROR ranging from 4.86 with mexiletine to 11.07 with flecainide. Regarding four specific arrhythmias in High Level Term (HLT) level, the AAD monotherapies with the highest ROR were flecainide in cardiac conduction disorders (ROR025 = 21.18), propafenone in rate and rhythm disorders (ROR025 = 10.36), dofetilide in supraventricular arrhythmias (ROR025 = 17.61), and ibutilide in ventricular arrhythmias (ROR025 = 4.91). Dofetilide/ibutilide, ibutilide, mexiletine/ibutilide and dronedarone presented no signal in the above four specific arrhythmias respectively. Compared with amiodarone monotherapy, sofosbuvir plus amiodarone detected the most significantly increased ROR in arrhythmias. Conclusion: The investigation showed the spectrum and risk of AAD-associated cardiac arrhythmias varied among different AAD therapies. The early identification and management of AAD-associated arrhythmias are of great importance in clinical practice.

Do Elderly Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Benefit from Pharmacological Strategies for Prevention of Arrhythmic Events?

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is associated with aging. It is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Western countries and constitutes the main cause of hospitalization among elderly patients. The pharmacological therapy of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has greatly improved during the last years. However, elderly patients less frequently receive recommended medical treatment.

SUMMARY

The quadruple therapy (sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) is nowadays the cornerstone of medical treatment since it associates lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality (also of arrhythmic origin). Cardiac arrhythmias, including sudden cardiac death, are common in patients with HFrEF, entailing worse prognosis. Previous studies addressing the role of blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and beta-adrenergic receptors in HFrEF have suggested different beneficial effects on arrhythmia mechanisms. Therefore, the lower mortality associated with the use of the four pillars of HFrEF therapy depends, in part, on lower sudden (mostly arrhythmic) cardiac death.

KEY MESSAGES

In this review, we highlight and assess the role of the four pharmacological groups that constitute the central axis of the medical treatment of patients with HFrEF in clinical prognosis and prevention of arrhythmic events, with special focus on the elderly patient, since evidence supports that most benefits provided are irrespective of age, but elderly patients receive less often guideline-recommended medical treatment.

Dofetilide use is not associated with increased mortality in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), however, many antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are contraindicated. US guidelines recommend avoiding pure class III antiarrhythmics such as dofetilide in patients with significant LVH due to concern for an increased risk of death, however, clinical data is lacking. We sought to determine if dofetilide use was associated with increased mortality in patients with LVH.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years of age with AF and LVH ≥ 1.4 cm were included. A group of patients treated with dofetilide and a control group of patients without a history of AAD use were propensity matched. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 3 years and secondary outcomes were total number of all-cause hospitalizations and hospitalizations related to AF.

RESULTS

There were 359 patients in each of the groups. Baseline variables were well-matched. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality occurred in 7% of patients in the dofetilide group and 12% of patients in the control group (hazard ratio: 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.53-1.53). Total all-cause hospitalizations were higher in the control group but hospitalizations for AF were no different.

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched cohort of 718 patients with AF and LVH, dofetilide was not associated with increased mortality at 3 years. Our study adds to prior data demonstrating the safety of dofetilide in this population despite guideline recommendations against its use. Given the limited options for AF management in LVH patients, dofetilide may be reasonable for symptomatic AF management.

Intersection of atrial fibrillation and heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction in >400 000 participants in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

Although atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexists with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), few data are available evaluating AF-specific care patterns and post-discharge outcomes in patients hospitalized for HFpEF. We evaluated AF-specific medical therapies and post-discharge outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF by AF history.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Trends in AF prevalence were evaluated among patients hospitalized for HFmrEF or HFpEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry from 2014 to 2020. Among those with linked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services post-discharge data, we assessed associations of AF with 12-month outcomes and determined trends in post-discharge prescriptions. Among 429 464 patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 65-85], 57% women), 216 486 (50%) had a history of AF. Over time, the proportion of patients with AF increased slightly. Among the 79 895 patients with post-discharge data, AF was independently associated with higher risk of mortality and all-cause readmissions at 12 months, with stronger associations in HFpEF than in HFmrEF (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.16 vs. HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97-1.10; pinteraction  = 0.009). Anti-arrhythmic drug use after heart failure hospitalization was low (18%) and increased modestly over time. Amiodarone accounted for 71% of total anti-arrhythmic drug prescriptions. Overall use of anticoagulants after heart failure hospitalization has significantly increased from 52% in 2014 to 61% in 2019, but remained modest.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of AF is rising among patients hospitalized with HFpEF. Those with comorbid AF face elevated post-discharge risks of death and rehospitalization. Current use of pharmacological rhythm control is low.

Amiodarone vs Dronedarone for Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common arrhythmias, but the optimal drug choice for a rhythm-control strategy remains uncertain.

Methods

This article reports on a retrospective cohort claims database study conducted using the Truven Health Market Scan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, and a discharge date between 2011 and 2015, were included. The exposure variables of interest were a discharge prescription for amiodarone or dronedarone. The average treatment effect for the composite of total mortality or a repeat cardiovascular (CV)-related hospitalization was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses with other treatment effect metrics were performed. Baseline covariate imbalances between the groups were adjusted using propensity-score methods with inverse probability weighting.

Results

A total of 1735 patients were discharged on amiodarone, and 338 were discharged on dronedarone, with a median follow-up time of 357 days. A total of 43 (12.7%) CV-related hospitalizations occurred in the dronedarone group, and 146 (8.4%) occurred in the amiodarone group (risk difference 4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-8.3%, P = 0.02). A total of 4 (1.2%) deaths occurred in the dronedarone group, and 31 (1.8%) deaths occurred with amiodarone (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -2.1%-0.9%, P = 0.6). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the dronedarone hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was 1.47 (95% CI 1.01-2.12). This result was generally robust to sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this incident cohort of patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, compared to those discharged on amiodarone, patients who received a dronedarone discharge prescription had an increase in the composite endpoint of recurrent CV-related hospitalization and death, over a median 1-year follow-up period.

Cardiomyocyte-specific CYP2J2 and its therapeutic implications

INTRODUCTION

Cytochrome P450s (CYPs) are a superfamily of monooxygenases with diverse biological roles. CYP2J2 is an isozyme highly expressed in the heart where it metabolizes endogenous substrates such as N-3/N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) to produce lipid mediators involved in homeostasis and cardioprotective responses. Expanding our knowledge of the role CYP2J2 has within the heart is important for understanding its impact on cardiac health and disease.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of this review was to assess the state of knowledge regarding cardiac CYP2J2. A literature search was conducted using PubMed-MEDLINE (from 2022 and earlier) to evaluate relevant studies regarding CYP2J2 mediated cardioprotection, small molecule modulators, effects of CYP2J2 substrates toward biologically relevant effects and implications of CYP2J2 polymorphisms and sexual dimorphism in the heart.

EXPERT OPINION

Cardiac CYP2J2-mediated metabolism of endogenous and exogenous substrates have been shown to impact cardiac function. Identifying individual factors, like sex and age, that affect CYP2J2 require further elucidation to better understand CYP2J2's clinical relevance. Resolving the biological targets and activities of CYP2J2-derived PUFA metabolites will be necessary to safely target CYP2J2 and design novel analogues. Targeting CYP2J2 for therapeutic aims offers a potential novel approach to regulating cardiac homeostasis, drug metabolism and cardioprotection.

Historical Aspects of the Use of Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Clinical Practice

Heart rhythm disorders are one of the most urgent problems in cardiology. The first reports on the possibility of using drugs in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias began to appear in the scientific literature from the middle of the 18th century. This pharmacotherapeutic direction has been developed since the second half of the 20th century, when new antiarrhythmic drugs began to be used in clinical practice. The introduction of new drugs and modern methods of treating arrhythmias into clinical practice has significantly improved the prognosis and quality of life of patients. Combination antiarrhythmic therapy, including antiarrhythmic drugs and radiofrequency ablation, seems to be the most promising and successful tactic for treating patients in the future. A historical review of the literature on the clinical use of antiarrhythmic drugs both in past years and at present is presented in the article.

Dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a range of renal function: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial

Aims

Use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging owing to issues with renal clearance, drug accumulation, and increased proarrhythmic risks. Because CKD is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), it is important to establish the efficacy and safety of AAD treatment in patients with CKD.

Methods and results

Dronedarone efficacy and safety in individuals with AF/AFL and varying renal functionality [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): ≥60, ≥45 and <60, and <45 mL/min] was investigated in a post hoc analysis of ATHENA (NCT00174785), a randomized, double-blind trial of dronedarone vs. placebo in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL plus additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare the incidence of endpoints between treatments. Overall, 4588 participants were enrolled from the trial. There was no interaction between treatment group and baseline eGFR assessed as a continuous variable (P = 0.743) for the first CV hospitalization or death from any cause (primary outcome). This outcome was lower with dronedarone vs. placebo across a wide range of renal function. First CV hospitalization and first AF/AFL recurrence were both lower in the two least renally impaired subgroups with dronedarone vs. placebo. Treatment emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were more frequent with dronedarone vs. placebo and occurred more often in patients with severe renal impairment.

Conclusion

Dronedarone is an effective AAD in patients with AF/AFL and CV risk factors across a wide range of renal function.

Pharmacologic Management for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Overview of Anti-Arrhythmic Drugs

Ventricular arrhythmias (Vas) are a life-threatening condition and preventable cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD). With the increased utilization of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD), the focus of VA management has shifted toward reduction of morbidity from VAs and ICD therapies. Anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) can be an important adjunct therapy in the treatment of recurrent VAs. In the treatment of VAs secondary to structural heart disease, amiodarone remains the most well studied and current guideline-directed pharmacologic therapy. Beta blockers also serve as an important adjunct and are a largely underutilized medication with strong evidentiary support. In patients with defined syndromes in structurally normal hearts, AADs can offer tailored therapies in prevention of SCD and improvement in quality of life. Further clinical trials are warranted to investigate the role of newer therapeutic options and for the direct comparison of established AADs.

Pharmacologic Rate versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Patients

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and Heart failure (HF) constitute two frequently coexisting cardiovascular diseases, with a great volume of the scientific research referring to strategies and guidelines associated with the best management of patients suffering from either of the two or both of these entities. The common pathophysiological paths, the adverse outcomes, the hospitalization rates, and the mortality rates that occur from various reports and trials indicate that a targeted therapy to the common background of these cardiovascular conditions may reverse the progression of their interrelating development. Among other optimal treatments concerning the prevalence of both AF and HF, the introduction of rhythm and rate control strategies in the guidelines has underlined the importance of sinus rhythm and heart rate control in the prevention of deleterious complications. The use of these strategies in the clinical practice has led to a debate about the superiority of rhythm versus rate control. The current guidelines as well as the published randomized trials and studies have not proved that rhythm control is more beneficial than the rate control treatments in the terms of survival, all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and quality of life. Therefore, the current therapeutic strategy is based on the therapy guidelines and the clinical judgment and experience. The aim of this review was to elucidate the endpoints of pharmacologic randomized clinical trials and the clinical data of each antiarrhythmic or rate-limiting medication, so as to promote their effective, individualized, evidence-based clinical use.

The Increasing Role of Rhythm Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The considerable mortality and morbidity associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) pose a substantial burden on patients and health care services. Although the management of AF historically focused on decreasing AF recurrence, it evolved over time in favor of rate control. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes using rhythm control, generally by using safe and effective rhythm-control therapies (typically antiarrhythmic drugs and/or AF ablation). Evidence increasingly supports early rhythm control in patients with AF that has not become long-standing, but current clinical practice and guidelines do not yet fully reflect this change. Early rhythm control may effectively reduce irreversible atrial remodeling and prevent AF-related deaths, heart failure, and strokes in high-risk patients. It has the potential to halt progression and potentially save patients from years of symptomatic AF; therefore, it should be offered more widely.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Management of atrial fibrillation: two decades of progress - a scientific statement from the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to evaluate the progress made in the management of AF over the two last decades.

RESULTS

Clinical classification of AF is usually based on the presence of symptoms, the duration of AF episodes and their possible recurrence over time, although incidental diagnosis is not uncommon. The majority of patients with AF have associated cardiovascular diseases and more recently the recognition of modifiable risk factors both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular which should be considered in its management. Among AF-related complications, stroke and transient ischaemic accidents (TIAs) carry considerable morbidity and mortality risk. The use of implantable devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators, wearable garments and subcutaneous cardiac monitors with recording capabilities has enabled to access the burden of "subclinical AF". The recent introduction of non-vitamin K antagonists has led to improve the prevention of stroke and peripheral embolism. Agents capable of reversing non-vitamin K antagonists have also become available in case of clinically relevant major bleeding. Transcatheter closure of left atrial appendage represents an option for patients unable to take oral anticoagulation. When treating patients with AF, clinicians need to select the most suitable strategy, i.e. control of heart rate and/or restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. The studies comparing these two strategies have not shown differences in terms of mortality. If an AF episode is poorly tolerated from a haemodynamic standpoint, electrical cardioversion is indicated. Otherwise, restoration of sinus rhythm can be obtained using intravenous pharmacological cardioversion and oral class I or class III antiarrhythmic is used to prevent recurrences. During the last two decades after its introduction in daily practice, catheter ablation has gained considerable escalation in popularity. Progress has also been made in AF associated with heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant progress has been made within the past 2 decades both in the pharmacological and non-pharmacological managements of this cardiac arrhythmia.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Atrial Fibrillation Management: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Pharmacotherapy, Rate, and Rhythm Control Strategies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice that leads to a substantial increase in utilization of healthcare services and a decrease in the quality of life of patients. The prevalence of AF will continue to increase as the population ages and develops cardiac comorbidities; thus, prompt and effective treatment is important to help mitigate systemic resource utilization. Treatment of AF involves two tenets: prevention of stroke and systemic embolism and symptom control with either a rate or a rhythm control strategy. Historically, due to the safe nature of medications like beta-blockers and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, used in rate control, it has been the initial strategy used for symptom control in AF. Newer data suggest that a rhythm control strategy with antiarrhythmic medications with or without catheter ablation may lead to a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, particularly in patients newly diagnosed with AF. Modulation of factors that promote AF or its complications is another important aspect of the overall holistic management of AF. This review provides a comprehensive focus on the management of patients with AF and an in-depth review of pharmacotherapy of AF in the rate and rhythm control strategies.

Dronedarone for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation with Concomitant Heart Failure with Preserved and Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ATHENA Trial

AIMS

Limited therapeutic options are available for the management of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) with concomitant heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction. (HFpEF and HFmrEF). Dronedarone reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with AF, but sparse data are available examining its role in patients with AF complicated by HFpEF and HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ATHENA was an international, multicenter trial that randomized 4,628 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and cardiovascular risk factors to dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo. We evaluated patients with 1) symptomatic HFpEF and HFmrEF (defined as LVEF>40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and New York Heart Association class II/III or diuretic use), 2) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF≤40%), and 3) those without HF. We assessed effects of dronedarone vs placebo on death or cardiovascular hospitalization (primary endpoint), other key efficacy endpoints, and safety. Overall, 534 (12%) had HFpEF or HFmrEF, 422 (9%) had HFrEF or LV dysfunction, and 3,672 (79%) did not have HF. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF had a mean age of 73±9 years, 37% were women, and had a mean LVEF of 57±9%. Over 21±5 months mean follow-up, dronedarone consistently reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.84) without heterogeneity based on HF status (P_interaction >0.10). This risk reduction in the primary endpoint was consistent across the range of LVEF (as a continuous function) in HF without heterogeneity (P_interaction =0.71). Rates of death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and HF hospitalization each directionally favored dronedarone vs. placebo in HFpEF and HFmrEF, but these treatment effects were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Dronedarone is associated with reduced cardiovascular events in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and HF across the spectrum of LVEF, including among those with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These data support a rationale for a future dedicated and powered clinical trial to affirm the net clinical benefit of dronedarone in this population.

Rhythm control without catheter ablation may have benefits beyond stroke prevention in rivaroxaban-treated non-permanent atrial fibrillation

The current treatment paradigm for atrial fibrillation (AF) prioritizes rate control over rhythm control; however, rhythm control has shown benefits over other AF strategies. This study compares the outcomes of rivaroxaban with and without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), using propensity score matching to correct for statistical effects of baseline discrepancies. This multi-center retrospective study included 1,477 patients with non-permanent AF who took rivaroxaban for at least one month between 2011 and 2016 and had not received catheter ablation. Concomitant AAD use was compared against clinical outcome endpoints for effectiveness, safety, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Associations with concomitant AAD use were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Patients were divided into two matched groups: rivaroxaban alone (n = 739) and with concomitant AADs (n = 738). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.308), effectiveness (p = 0.583), and MACE (p = 0.754) were similar between the two groups, and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences. The new thromboembolism and all-cause death rates were higher in rivaroxaban alone (2.7% vs 0.8%, p = 0.005; and 10% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.032, respectively). The heart failure readmission rate was higher in the concomitant-AAD group (8.4% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well-tolerated, with lower rates of thromboembolism and all-cause death, but is associated with more occurrences of congestive heart failure.

Rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: from AFFIRM to EAST-AFNET 4 - a paradigm shift

The clinical choice between rate or rhythm control therapies has been debated over the years. In 2002, the AFFIRM trial demonstrated that the rhythm-control strategy had no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy. Eighteen years later, EAST-AFNET 4 showed that the rhythm-control approach is better than rate control in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). During the time between AFFIRM and EAST-AFNET 4, rhythm control understanding, specifically ablation, improved, while rate-control strategies remained the same possibly leading to the change in results seen in EAST-AFNET 4. This review seeks to evaluate the rate- and rhythm-control strategies, focusing on the important clinical trials in the past two decades. These trials have shown great advancement in AF management; however, the search for the best approach to controlling AF and minimizing the burden of symptoms is still a work in progress and needs further research.

Site-directed deuteration of dronedarone preserves cytochrome P4502J2 activity and mitigates its cardiac adverse effects in canine arrhythmic hearts

Cytochrome P4502J2 (CYP2J2) metabolizes arachidonic acid (AA) to cardioprotective epoxyeicosatrienoic acids (EETs). Dronedarone, an antiarrhythmic drug prescribed for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) induces cardiac adverse effects (AEs) with poorly understood mechanisms. We previously demonstrated that dronedarone inactivates CYP2J2 potently and irreversibly, disrupts AA-EET pathway leading to cardiac mitochondrial toxicity rescuable via EET enrichment. In this study, we investigated if mitigation of CYP2J2 inhibition prevents dronedarone-induced cardiac AEs. We first synthesized a deuterated analogue of dronedarone (termed poyendarone) and demonstrated that it neither inactivates CYP2J2, disrupts AA-EETs metabolism nor causes cardiac mitochondrial toxicity in vitro. Our patch-clamp experiments demonstrated that pharmacoelectrophysiology of dronedarone is unaffected by deuteration. Next, we show that dronedarone treatment or CYP2J2 knockdown in spontaneously beating cardiomyocytes indicative of depleted CYP2J2 activity exacerbates beat-to-beat (BTB) variability reflective of proarrhythmic phenotype. In contrast, poyendarone treatment yields significantly lower BTB variability compared to dronedarone in cardiomyocytes indicative of preserved CYP2J2 activity. Importantly, poyendarone and dronedarone display similar antiarrhythmic properties in the canine model of persistent AF, while poyendarone substantially reduces beat-to-beat variability of repolarization duration suggestive of diminished proarrhythmic risk. Our findings prove that deuteration of dronedarone prevents CYP2J2 inactivation and mitigates dronedarone-induced cardiac AEs.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Ventricular Arrhythmias in Seniors with Heart Failure: Present Dilemmas and Therapeutic Considerations: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Heart Failure (HF) is a global public health problem, which affects over 23 million people worldwide. The prevalence of HF is higher among seniors in the USA and other developed countries. Ventricular Arrhythmias (VAs) account for 50% of deaths among patients with HF. We aim to elucidate the factors associated with VAs among seniors with HF, as well as therapies that may improve the outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched using specific keywords. The reference lists of relevant articles were searched for additional studies related to HF and VAs among seniors as well as associated outcomes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of VAs increases with worsening HF. A 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram may be useful in risk stratifying patients for device therapy if they do not meet the criterion of low ventricular ejection fraction. Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICDs) are superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs in reducing mortality in patients with HF. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) together with device therapy may be required to reduce symptoms. In general, the proportion of seniors on GDMT is low. A combination of ICDs and cardiac resynchronization therapy may improve outcomes in selected patients.

CONCLUSION

Seniors with HF and VAs have high mortality even with the use of device therapy and GDMT. The holistic effect of device therapy on outcomes among seniors with HF is equivocal. More studies focused on seniors with advanced HF as well as therapeutic options are, therefore, required.

Anticoagulation in cardiomyopathy: unravelling the hidden threat and challenging the threat individually

Cardiomyopathy comprises a heterogeneous group of myocardial abnormalities, structural or functional in nature, in the absence of coronary artery disease and other abnormal loading conditions. These myocardial pathologies can result in premature death or disability from progressive heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, or other embolic events. The European Cardiomyopathy Registry reports a high stroke risk in cardiomyopathy patients ranging from 2.1% to 4.5%, as well as high prevalence of atrial fibrillation ranging from 14.0% to 48.5%. There is a growing interest in evaluating the risk of thromboembolism depending on the type of cardiomyopathy, as well as if anticoagulation is indicated in patients with cardiomyopathy without atrial fibrillation. Data available do not unequivocally support anticoagulation therapy in all of these patients; the management of these patients remains challenging. Many published reports pertaining to the risk of thromboembolism and consecutive treatment strategies mainly focus on single cardiomyopathy subtype. We summarize essential pathophysiological knowledge and review current literature associated with thromboembolism in various cardiomyopathy subtypes, providing recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation as well as clinical management strategies in this field. Certain cardiomyopathy subtypes require anticoagulation independent of atrial fibrillation or CHA2 DS2 -VASc score. Despite the scarcity of evidence regarding the choice of anticoagulation regimen (vitamin K antagonist vs. non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants) in cardiomyopathy, it is discussed and reviewed in this article. Each patient should receive a tailored strategy based on thorough clinical evaluation, published evidence, and clinical experience, due to the current recommendations mostly developed on small-sample studies or empirical evidence. The future research priorities in this area are also addressed in this article.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: A contemporary review of current management approaches

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and complicate the course of treatment of each other. AF with rapid ventricular conduction can lead to tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, which is a reversible cause of cardiomyopathy. However, in most cases, AF is the manifestation of various underlying cardiomyopathies. Guideline-directed pharmacological and device therapy for HF is essential. The management options for AF and HF include pharmacological rhythm control, pharmacological rate control, and interventional approaches, which include catheter ablation for AF via pulmonary vein isolation and atrioventricular node ablation. This is a contemporary review to discuss the available evidence regarding the various management approaches in this specific patient group.

International cohort study on the effectiveness of dronedarone and other antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation in real-world practice (EFFECT-AF)

Aims

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone compared with other commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences.

Methods and results

An international observational cohort study in Germany, Spain, Italy, and the USA enrolling patients with AF receiving AAD therapy. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV heart failure were excluded. Participants were followed for up to 18 months, regardless of discontinuation or subsequent AAD switches. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was captured by hospitalization, emergency room visit, or electrocardiogram-based documentation of AF. Confounding bias was controlled for in the analysis of AF recurrence using multivariate models of 19 variables for adjustment. A total of 1009 participants [mean age 67.2 (10.8) years, male to female ratio 1.3] were recruited from 170 centres, 693 (69%) of which were from across Europe and the remaining 316 (31%) from the USA. At the time of enrolment, participants were taking dronedarone (51%) or other AADs (49%) [flecainide or propafenone (42%), sotalol (11%), and amiodarone (47%)]. No significant differences in the risk of first confirmed AF recurrence with dronedarone vs. other AADs [crude hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.85–1.42); adjusted HR 1.16 (0.87–1.55)] were found, irrespective of whether univariate or multivariate models were used. Reported safety events were in accordance with the known safety profile of dronedarone.

Conclusion

In this population of patients from either Europe or the USA receiving dronedarone or another AAD, the effectiveness of dronedarone was comparable to that observed for other AADs in preventing first AF recurrence.