Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockade use in relation to outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation

Cardiovascular medications used for comorbid diseases in patients with atrial fibrillation. The JoFib study

PURPOSE

Many atrial fibrillation (AF) patients use cardiovascular medications for indications other than AF. These medications can affect morbidity and mortality. We aim to investigate the characteristics of AF patients who use different medication classes and their clinical course.

METHODS

We collected data from the prospective, multicenter registry, JoFib study. We identified classes of non-AF medications (medications not used for rate control, rhythm control, or anticoagulation), described demographic and clinical characteristics, and investigated AF-related outcomes according to these medication classes.

RESULTS

From a total of 2020 patients, five classes of cardiovascular non-AF medications were identified, aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, statins, and diuretics. The most commonly used non-AF medications were diuretics and ACE inhibitors/ARBs (39.2%, and 39%, respectively). 51% of AF patients took more than one non-AF medication. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy independently reduced the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.37-0.68; aHR 0.51, 95%CI 0.34-0.75, respectively) and that statin therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular mortality (aHR 0.68, 95%CI 0.48-0.98) in AF patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated a protective effect of statin therapy against the secondary outcome, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) (adjusted OR 0.62 95%CI 0.42-0.94).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a protective effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs against all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, statins against cardiovascular mortality, and CRNMB in patients with AF. Accordingly, these medications should be encouraged in patients with AF when indicated. Additionally, future research should explore whether these medications should be offered to AF patients more routinely. The study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier number: NCT03917992, Registration date:14/4/2019).

Atrial Fibrillation and Hypertension: "Quo Vadis"

Hypertension is one of the most well-established risk factors for atrial fibrillation. Long-standing untreated hypertension leads to structural remodeling and electrophysiologic alterations causing an atrial myopathy that forms a vulnerable substrate for the development and maintenance of atrial fibrillation. Hypertension-induced hemodynamic, inflammatory, hormonal, and autonomic changes all appear to be important contributing factors. Furthermore, hypertension is also associated with several atrial fibrillation-related comorbidities. As such, hypertension may represent an important target for therapy in atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should be aware of pitfalls of the blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation. While the auscultatory method is preferred, the use of automated devices appears to be an acceptable method in the ambulatory setting. There are pathophysiologic bases and emerging clinical evidence suggesting the benefit of renin-angiotensin system inhibition in risk reduction of atrial fibrillation development particularly in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy or left ventricular dysfunction. A better understanding of hypertension's pathophysiologic link to atrial fibrillation may lead to the development of novel therapies for the primary prevention of atrial fibrillation. Finally, future studies are needed to address optimal blood pressure goal to minimize the risk of atrial fibrillation-related complications.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors Prognostic Benefit in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) have shown antiarrhythmic effects that are useful as part of the upstream therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), both for primary and secondary prevention. Nevertheless, the potential prognosis value of these drugs in terms of mortality and major cardiovascular events is unclear, especially in older population with AF. Scientific evidence is scarce in this population and shows contradictory results. The aim of this study was to assess the potential benefit of ACEi and ARB in terms of mortality and major cardiovascular outcomes (hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction and stroke) in older patients with AF, based on a real-world data analysis.

DESIGN

Observational: analysis of a retrospective registry.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

The study included 9365 patients of 75 years or older diagnosed with AF, from CardioCHUVI-AF_75 registry: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364516. Date of registration: November 26, 2018.

METHODS

We performed propensity score matching techniques to obtain 2 comparable groups of 3601 patients with and without ACEi or ARB treatment. We compared survival and cardiovascular outcomes in both groups of patients using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

We did not find significant differences in terms of survival between using or not using ACEi or ARB for the older population (hazard ratio for mortality: 0.959, 95% confidence interval 0.872-1.054). There were no significant differences regarding cardiovascular major events between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Treatment with ACEi or ARB did not improve outcomes in terms of survival and cardiovascular events in older patients with AF. These results should prompt the conduct of randomized clinical trials specifically in the older AF patient population to robustly address this issue.

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Registry

Background

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy may be beneficial to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but little is known about their use in patients with AF and subsequent outcomes.

Methods and Results

In order to better understand MRA use and subsequent outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the contemporary ORBIT‐AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registry. AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes were compared using propensity‐matched Cox proportional hazards modeling according to MRA use at baseline and new MRA use at follow‐up versus patients with no MRA use. Among 7012 patients with nonpermanent AF, 320 patients were taking MRA at enrollment, and 416 patients initiated MRA use during follow‐up. The mean patient age was 72.5 years, 56.3% were men, and 70.4% had paroxysmal AF. Among all patients taking MRAs, 434 (59.0%) had heart failure, 655 (89.0%) had hypertension, and 380 (51.6%) had both. After adjustment, new MRA use was not associated with reduced AF progression (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.58; P=0.27) but showed a trend towards lower risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–1.23; P=0.08). Results were similar for a comparison of new MRA users and baseline MRA users compared with nonusers.

Conclusions

In community‐based outpatients with AF, the majority of MRA use was for heart failure and hypertension. MRA use also trended towards lower adjusted stroke risk. Future studies should test the hypothesis that MRA use may decrease the risk of stroke in patients with AF.

Angiotensin II receptor type 1 is upregulated in atrial tissue of patients with rheumatic valvular disease with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in expression of angiotensin II receptor type 1/2 in left or right atrial tissue from patients with rheumatic valvular disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Atrial tissue samples were obtained from 39 patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease during cardiac surgery. Among these patients, there were 25 with atrial fibrillation and 14 with sinus rhythm. The level of angiotensin II receptor type 1 or type 2 mRNA transcription was measured by means of a semiquantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction technique. Expression of angiotensin II receptor type 1 or type 2 protein was detected by means of immunohistochemistry assay and Western blot analysis.

RESULTS

The inner diameter of the left atrium was clearly enlarged in the atrial fibrillation group in comparison with that seen in the sinus rhythm group. The expression levels of both angiotensin II receptor type 1 mRNA and protein in the left atrial tissue were significantly increased in the patients with atrial fibrillation compared with those seen in patients with sinus rhythm (P < .05). Interestingly, the comparison of angiotensin II receptor type 2 expression levels in the left atrial tissue between these 2 groups is not statistically significant. In addition, the results of angiotensin II receptor type 1 or 2 expression in the right atrial tissue did not show any obvious change in the patients with atrial fibrillation versus those with sinus rhythm.

CONCLUSIONS

Expression of angiotensin II receptor type 1 but not type 2 is highly upregulated only in the left atrial tissue of patients with rheumatic valvular disease with atrial fibrillation. This suggests that there is a possible pathophysiologic role of the renin-angiotensin system in patients with atrial fibrillation and that a series of effects mediated by the activation of angiotensin II receptor type 1 in the left atrial tissue might be one of the molecular mechanisms involved in the process of atrial remodeling in atrial fibrillation.