Atrial Fibrillation can adversely impact Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction by its association with Heart Failure Progression and Mortality: A Post-Hoc Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the TOPCAT Americas Trial

Prevalence and outcomes of heart failure phenotypes in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure (HF). Real-world data about long-term outcomes and rhythm control interventions use in AF patients with and without HF remain scarce.

METHODS

AF patients from two prospective, multicentre studies were classified based on the HF status at baseline into: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF), and no HF. The prespecified primary outcome was risk of HF hospitalisation. Other outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular events, AF progression, and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 patients with AF were analysed (mean age 69.6 years, women 27.4%) with a median follow-up of 5.98 years. Patients with HFpEF (n = 126) had a 2.69-fold and patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 308) had a 2.12-fold increased risk of HF hospitalisation compared to patients without HF (n = 831, p < 0.001). Similar results applied for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The risk for AF progression was higher for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF/HFmrEF (6.30 and 6.79 per 100 patient-years, respectively) compared to patients without HF (4.20). The use of rhythm control strategies during follow-up was least in the HFpEF population (4.56 per 100 patient-years) compared to 7.74 in HFrEF/HFmrEF and 8.03 in patients with no HF. With regards to quality of life over time, this was worst among HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of HFpEF among patients with AF carried a high risk of HF hospitalisations and AF progression, and worse quality of life. Rhythm control interventions were rarely offered to HFpEF patients. These results uncover an unmet need for enhanced therapeutic interventions in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2 weeks before and 6 months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-6.73; P < 0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.82-1.86, P = 0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6 months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Stratification in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) poses a significant clinical challenge, with sudden cardiac death (SCD) emerging as one of the leading causes of mortality. Despite advancements in cardiovascular medicine, predicting and preventing SCD in HFpEF remains complex due to multifactorial pathophysiological mechanisms and patient heterogeneity. Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where impaired contractility and ventricular remodeling predominate, HFpEF pathophysiology involves heavy burden of comorbidities such as hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. Diverse mechanisms, including diastolic dysfunction, microvascular abnormalities, and inflammation, also contribute to distinct disease and SCD risk profiles. Various parameters such as clinical factors and electrocardiogram features have been proposed in SCD risk assessment. Advanced imaging modalities and biomarkers offer promise in risk prediction, yet comprehensive risk stratification models specific to HFpEF ar0e lacking. This review offers recent evidence on SCD risk factors and discusses current therapeutic strategies aimed at reducing SCD risk in HFpEF.

Sex differences in atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on the impact of sex on the outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. We aimed to analyze the association of sex with outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database (NRD) was analyzed from 2016 to 2019 to identify patients ≥ 18 years old with heart failure (HF) undergoing AF ablation. The outcomes of interest included peri-procedural complications, in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and unplanned 1-year readmissions. The final cohort was divided into patients with HFrEF and HFpEF and outcomes were compared between males and females in both cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 23,277 patients with HF underwent AF ablation between 2016 and 2019, of which 14,480 had HFrEF and 8,797 had HFpEF. Among patients with HFrEF, 61.6% were males and 38.4% were females whereas, among patients with HFpEF, 35.4% were males and 64.6% were females. On a multivariable-adjusted analysis, in patients with HFrEF, there was no difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality, peri-procedural complications, or 1-year HF-related/AF-related/all-cause readmissions between males and females. In patients with HFpEF, females had a higher risk 1-year HF-related readmissions (adjusted hazards ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87; p = 0.01), without any difference in the 1-year AF-related/all-cause readmissions, in-hospital mortality, or peri-procedural complications.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that females with HFrEF undergoing AF ablation have similar outcomes whereas females with HFpEF have higher 1-year HF readmissions with no difference in the other outcomes, compared to males.

Heart Failure-Related Death in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation in the United States, 1999 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Population-based data on heart failure (HF)-related death in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. We assessed HF-related death in people with AF in the United States over the past 21 years and examined differences by age, sex, race, ethnicity, urbanization, and census region.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were extracted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to determine trends in age-adjusted mortality rates per 100 000 people, due to HF-related death among subjects with AF aged ≥15 years. To calculate nationwide annual trends, we assessed the average annual percent change (AAPC) and annual percent change with relative 95% CIs using joinpoint regression. Between 1999 and 2020, 916 685 HF-related deaths (396 205 men and 520 480 women) occurred among US adults having a concomitant AF. The overall age-adjusted mortality rates increased (AAPC: +4.1% [95% CI, 3.8-4.4]; P<0.001), especially after 2011 (annual percent change, +6.8% [95% CI, 6.2-7.4]; P<0.001) in men (AAPC, +4.8% [95% CI, 4.4-5.1]; P<0.001), in White subjects (AAPC: +4.2% [95% CI, 3.9 to 4.6]; P<0.001) and in subjects aged <65 years (AAPC: +7.5% [95% CI, 6.7-8.4]; P<0.001). The higher percentage of deaths were registered in the South (32.8%). During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant excess in HF-related deaths among patients with AF aged >65 years was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A worrying increase in the HF-related mortality rate among patients with AF has been observed in the United States over the past 2 decades.

Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinically detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a significant increase in mortality and other adverse cardiovascular events. Since the advent of effective methods for AF rhythm control, investigators have attempted to determine how much these adverse prognostic AF effects could be mitigated by the restoration of sinus rhythm (SR) and whether the method used mattered.

METHODS

The CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2204 AF patients to ablation versus drug therapy, of which 1240 patients were monitored in follow-up using the CABANA ECG rhythm monitoring system. To assess the prognostic benefits of SR, we performed a prespecified analysis using Cox survival modeling with heart rhythm as a time-dependent variable and randomized treatment group as a stratification factor.

RESULTS

In the 1240 patient study cohort, 883 (71.2%) had documented AF at some point during their postblanking follow-up. Among the 883 patients, 671 (76.0%) experienced AF within the first year of postblanking follow-up, and 212 (24.0%) experienced their first AF after ≥1 year of postblanking follow-up. The primary CABANA end point (death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest) occurred in 95 (10.8%) of the 883 patients with documented AF and in 29 (8.1%) of the 357 patients with no AF recorded during follow-up. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, the presence of SR (compared with non-SR) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]; P=0.006; independent of treatment strategy [ablation versus drugs]). Corresponding results for all-cause mortality were adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-1.01]; P=0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients in the CABANA trial with detailed long-term rhythm follow-up, increased time in SR was associated with a clinically consequential decrease in mortality and other adverse prognostic events. The predictive value of SR was independent of the therapeutic approach responsible for reducing the burden of detectable AF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00911508.

Ablation for atrial fibrillation improves the outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have worse clinical outcomes than those with sinus rhythm (SR). We aim to investigate whether maintaining SR in patients with HFpEF through a strategy such as AF ablation would improve outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cohort study that analysed 1034 patients (median age 69 [63-76] years, 46.2% [478/1034] female) with HFpEF and AF. Of these, 392 patients who underwent first-time AF ablation were assigned to the ablation group, and the remaining 642 patients, who received only medical therapy, were assigned to the no ablation group. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the ablation group compared to the no ablation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82], P = 0.003) in the propensity score-matched model. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that the benefit of AF ablation was mainly driven by a reduction in rehospitalization for worsening heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.80], P = 0.003). Patients in the ablation group showed a 33% relative decrease in atrial tachycardia/AF recurrence compared to the no ablation group (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF and AF, the strategy of AF ablation to maintain SR was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure.