Impact of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced, mid-range or preserved ejection fraction

Surgical ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and left ventricular dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) are common conditions that often coexist, with about 25% of patients in NYHA classes I-II having AF. Efficacy and safety of surgical ablation (SA) in this population remains unclear.

Methods

We aimed to perform a single-arm meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of standalone and concomitant SA in adult patients with AF and LVD. We searched PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Endpoints of interest were maintenance of sinus rhythm, freedom from anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) use, change in LVEF, 30-day mortality, 1 year mortality and major procedural complications. We calculated pooled proportions or means for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively, with a 95 % confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ten observational studies comprising 863 patients (mean follow-up of 19 months) were included. At 1 year, SA resulted in a sinus rhythm rate of 83.9 % (95 % CI: 69.5-92.3); freedom from AAD use of 81.6 % (95 % CI: 64.7-91.7); and mortality of 5.77 (95 % CI:3.7-8.9). 30-day mortality was 2.16 % (95 % CI: 0.9-4.9); major complications 16.73 % (95 % CI: 12-23); and an improvement in LVEF of 12 % (95 % CI: 9-17).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found that SA appears to be an effective strategy to achieve sinus rhythm in patients with AF and LVD, with a pooled 30-day mortality of 2.2%. Comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of SA compared with other rhythm control strategies in this population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: the DELIVER Trial

PURPOSE

The DELIVER trial demonstrated the efficacy of dapagliflozin in reducing primary endpoint (cardiovascular (CV) mortality or worsening heart failure) for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study assessed the economic and clinical effects of incorporating dapagliflozin into a standard treatment regimen for HFpEF and HFmrEF cases in China.

METHODS

A multistate Markov model was used to assess the clinical and economic effects of adding dapagliflozin to the usual treatment regimen for HFpEF and HFmrEF. A log-logistic formula was used to represent the cumulative incidence of hospitalization, readmission, and CV mortality. A 5% annual discount was applied to all costs. The health outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs). The findings were examined using sensitivity and scenario analyses to assess robustness.

RESULTS

In the HFpEF or HFmrEF population, the 11.2-year incremental QALYs was 0.15 and LYs was 0.2, yielding an ICER of $10,615.87 per QALY and $7,763.08 per LY. These ICER values are lower than China's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $12,752 in 2022. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that non-hospital CV death was the most influential parameter. Furthermore, there was a 68% chance that dapagliflozin was cost-effective as an additional treatment, given a willingness-to-pay limit of three times the GDP ($38,256).

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin adjunctive therapy was cost-effective in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from the perspective of Chinese national insurance.

Rate Versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

Atrial fibrillation with Heart Failure is a constellation of co-morbid conditions that now constitutes a major cardiovascular epidemic, with HF now the most common complication of AF. Mechanistically, both conditions promote substrate disease in the atrium and ventricle. AF is an independent rixk factor in HF progression and pump failure death. While early studies comparing rhythm control antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control drugs showed no significant benefit in cardiovascular outcomes, AF did promote HF emergence and hospitalizations. Newer rhythm control strategies with present day antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation support benefits in cardiovascular outcomes in AF with HF. Catheter ablation improved HF outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction but further and larger studies are needed, especially for AF with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Optimal Medical Therapy for Heart Failure and Integrated Care in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report From the ESC-EHRA EORP Atrial Fibrillation Long-Term General Registry

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) often occurs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), with a major impact on prognosis. Few data are available on the effect of integrated treatment strategies to improve prognosis in patients with AF. We aimed to evaluate the association between HF (according to left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]), HF optimal medical therapy and adherence to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway, and major outcomes in patients with AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF (European Society of Cardiology-European Heart Rhythm Association EURObservational Research Programme in Atrial Fibrillation) General Long-Term Registry, we evaluated patients with HF, categorized according to LVEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction). Optimal medical therapy for HF was guidelines-defined. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events. From the original cohort, 9373 (84.5%) patients were included in this analysis (median age, 71 [interquartile range, 62-77] years; 39.9% women). Compared with no HF, all HF categories were associated with an increased risk of the primary composite outcome, with highest figures observed for HF with reduced ejection fraction (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36 [95% CI, 2.00-2.78]). The risk was reduced in patients with AF and HF adherent to optimal medical therapy (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70-0.98]), as well as in those adherents to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.48-0.88]). The effect of Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway was consistent across the spectrum of LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF and HF have a high risk of major adverse events, and this risk is inversely associated with LVEF. Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway adherent management is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with HF, across the spectrum of LVEF.

Possible Risk Factors Contributing to Atrial Fibrillation Occurrence in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Heart failure (HF) is often accompanied by atrial fibrillation (AF), which significantly worsens the outcome of both diseases. Half of individuals with HF has AF, and HF occurs in more than one-third of individuals with AF. Thus, HF and AF are commonly encountered together and are closely interrelated with similar risk factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of potential risk factors on the occurrence of paroxysmal/persistent AF in patients with heart failure with moderately reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Methods

The study included 193 patients with HFmrEF and nonvalvular paroxysmal/persistent AF after successful cardioversion. As a control group the similar 76 patients without AF were examined. All patients underwent the examination, including electrocardiography (ECG), echocardiography, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and Holter ECG monitoring. Levels of inflammatory markers, such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and the fibrotic marker transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) were measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. The obtained results were modeled using binary logistic regression using the odds ratio (OR).

Results

It was shown that frequent episodes of hypertensive crisis (HC) and increased body mass index (BMI) were possible risk factors for paroxysmal/persistent AF. An increased OR of diastolic and systolic parameters of the left ventricle was associated with significant atrial and ventricular remodeling. Statistically, higher OR of inflammatory markers levels, such as hs-CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α were associated with an increased risk of paroxysmal/persistent AF occurrence in HFmrEF patients compared to similar patients without AF. An increase of the fibrosis marker TGF-β1 OR was statistically significant in patients with persistent AF.

Conclusions

It could be considered that frequency of HC, BMI, atrial and ventricular remodeling, as well as an increase of inflammation markers were possible risk factors for the occurrence of paroxysmal/persistent AF in HFmrEF patients. Moreover, fibrosis factor level significantly increased the likelihood of persistent AF in these patients.

Managing elderly patients with atrial fibrillation and multimorbidity: call for a systematic approach

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often accompanied by comorbidities. Not only cardiovascular but also non-cardiovascular comorbidities have been associated with AF. Multimorbidity is therefore a common finding in patients with AF, especially in elderly patients. Multimorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes, adds complexity to AF management, and poses a significant burden on healthcare costs. It is expected that the prevalence of elderly patients with multimorbidity will increase significantly. It is therefore crucial to outline implications for clinical practice and guide comprehensive multimorbidity management.

AREAS COVERED

This perspective article outlines multimorbidity in AF and the importance of comprehensive comorbidity management. It addresses current clinical practice guided by international guidelines and the need for integrated care including a patient-centered focus, comprehensive AF management, coordinated multidisciplinary care, and supporting technology. Moreover, it proposes a novel model of care delivery following a systematic approach to multimorbidity management.

EXPERT OPINION

Providing comprehensive care by means of a multidisciplinary team and patient engagement is crucial to provide optimal personalized care for elderly patients with AF and multimorbidity. A systematic integrated care approach seems promising, but further studies are needed to investigate the feasibility of a systematic approach and prioritization of comorbidity management in patients with multimorbidity.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of stroke and thromboembolism risk in atrial fibrillation with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction heart failure

BACKGROUND

Stroke and thromboembolism (TE) are significant complications in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). The impact of ejection fraction status on these risks remains unclear. This study aims to compare the risk of stroke and TE in patients with AF and HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction.

METHODS

Literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was done for studies in adult (20 years or more) population of AF patients. Included studies had reported on the incidences of stroke and/or TE in patients with AF and associated HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, and studies that were based on secondary analysis of data from a trial were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Exploratory analysis was conducted based on the different cut-offs used to define HFrEF and HFpEF.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were analyzed. In the overall analysis, HFrEF in AF patients was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stroke and systemic TE (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.96; n = 20, I2 = 86.6%), compared to HFpEF. However, most studies showed comparable risk of stroke among the two groups of patients except for two studies that had documented significantly reduced risk. Upon doing the sensitivity analysis by excluding these two studies, we found similar risk among the two group of subjects and with no heterogeneity (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.03; n = 18, I2 = 0.0%). Exploratory analysis also showed that the risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism was similar between those with HFpEF and HFrEF.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that there is no significantly different risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in cases of AF with associated HFpEF or HFrEF. The finding does not support integration of left ventricular ejection fraction into stroke risk assessments.

Clinical impact of atrial fibrillation progression in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A report from the CHART-2 Study

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexists with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and clinical outcomes of patients with AF vary depending on its subtype. While AF progression characterized by the transition from paroxysmal AF to persistent AF is sometimes observed, the incidence and clinical impact of AF progression in patients with HFpEF remain to be explored.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled patients with HFpEF and paroxysmal AF from the Chronic Heart Failure Analysis and Registry in the Tohoku District-2 (CHART-2) Study. AF progression was defined as the transition from paroxysmal AF to persistent AF. A total of 718 patients (median age: 72 years, 36% were female) were enrolled. For a median follow-up of 6.0 years (interquartile range: 3.0-10.2 years), AF progression occurred in 105 patients (14.6%), with a cumulative incidence of 16.7% at 10 years. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, previous hospitalization for heart failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.60; P = 0.007] and left atrial diameter (per 5-mm increase) (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20-1.55; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with AF progression. Furthermore, AF progression was significantly linked to worsening heart failure (adjusted HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.18-2.40; P = 0.004). Notably, 27 cases (26%) of worsening heart failure occurred within 1 year following AF progression.

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFpEF, AF progression is significantly associated with adverse outcomes, particularly worsening heart failure. An increased risk is observed in the early phases following progression to persistent AF.

REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00418041.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure With Reduced vs Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Catheter ablation is associated with reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in select patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the benefit in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate whether catheter ablation for AF is associated with reduced HF-related outcomes according to HF phenotype.

Data Source

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted among studies published from inception to September 2023.

Study Selection

Parallel-group randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with conventional rate or rhythm control therapies in patients with HF, New York Heart Association functional class II or greater, and a history of paroxysmal or persistent AF were included. Pairs of independent reviewers screened 7531 titles and abstracts, of which 12 RCTs and 4 substudies met selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Interaction P values were used to test for subgroup differences.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HF events, defined as HF hospitalization, clinically significant worsening of HF, or unscheduled visits to a clinician for treatment intensification. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs with 2465 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.7] years; 658 females [26.7%]) were included; there were 1552 participants with HFrEF and 913 participants with HFpEF. Compared with conventional rate or rhythm control, catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of HF events in HFrEF (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), while there was no benefit in patients with HFpEF (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32) (P for interaction = .03). Catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared with conventional therapies in HFrEF (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70) but a differential association was not detected in HFpEF (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) (P for interaction = .12). Similarly, no difference in the association of catheter ablation with all-cause mortality was found between HFrEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86) and HFpEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.30) groups (P for interaction = .39).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that catheter ablation for AF was associated with reduced risk of HF events in patients with HFrEF but had limited or no benefit in HFpEF. Results from ongoing trials may further elucidate the role of catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF.

Atrial fibrillation type and long-term clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with heart failure: insight from JROADHF

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) type (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent) is important in determining therapeutic management; however, clinical outcomes by AF type are largely unknown for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Japanese Registry Of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure is a retrospective, multicenter, and nationwide registry of patients hospitalized for acute HF in Japan. Follow-up data were collected up to 5 years after hospitalization. Patients were divided based on diagnosis and AF type into 3 groups [without AF, paroxysmal AF, and sustained AF (defined as a composite of persistent and permanent AF)], and compared the backgrounds and outcomes between the groups. Of 12 895 hospitalized HF patients [mean age: 78 ± 13 years, female: 6077 (47%), and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 47 ± 17%], 1725 had paroxysmal AF, and 3672 had sustained AF. Compared with patients without AF, sustained AF had a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.17; P = 0.03], mainly driven by HF hospitalization [HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06-1.26; P < 0.001], whereas the corresponding risk for the primary endpoint in patients with paroxysmal AF was not elevated (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; P = 0.53) after adjustment by multivariable Cox regression analysis. These results were consistent among the subgroups of patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (interaction P = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Among hospitalized patients with HF, sustained AF, but not paroxysmal AF, was significantly associated with a higher risk for CV death or HF hospitalization, indicating the importance of accounting for AF type in HF patients.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. Contemporary classification of HF categorizes it into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aggregate data comparing the risk profile of AF between these three HF categories are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining any significant differences in AF-associated all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality (CV), and stroke between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until February 28, 2023. Data were combined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies comprising 248 323 patients were retained: HFrEF 123 331 (49.7%), HFmrEF 40 995 (16.5%), and HFpEF 83 997 (33.8%). Pooled baseline AF prevalence was 36% total population, 30% HFrEF, 36% HFmrEF, and 42% HFpEF. AF was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in the total population with pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.21), HFmrEF (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05-1.50) and HFpEF (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09-1.24), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.93-1.14). AF was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalizations in the total population (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14-1.46), HFmrEF (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.20-2.24), and HFpEF (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.83), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87-1.18). AF was only associated with CV in the HFpEF subcategory but was associated with stroke in all three HF subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

AF appears to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization in HFmrEF and HFpEF. With these findings, the paucity of data and treatment guidelines on AF in the HFmrEF subgroup becomes even more significant and warrant further investigations.

Does asymptomatic atrial fibrillation exist?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently defined as symptomatic by asking patients if they are aware of when they are in AF and if they feel better in sinus rhythm. However, this approach of defining AF as symptomatic and asymptomatic fails to adequately consider the adverse effects of AF in patients who are unaware of their rhythm including progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF, and the development of dementia, stroke, sinus node dysfunction, valvular regurgitation, ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure. Labeling these patients as asymptomatic falsely suggests that their AF requires less intense therapy and puts into question the notion of truly asymptomatic AF. Because focusing on patient awareness ignores other important consequences of AF, clinical endpoints that are independent of symptoms are being developed. The concept of AF burden has more recently been used as a clinical endpoint in clinical trials as a more clinically relevant endpoint compared to AF-related symptoms or time to first recurrence, but its correlation with symptoms and other clinical outcomes remains unclear. This review will explore the impact of AF on apparently asymptomatic patients, the use of AF burden as an endpoint for AF management, and potential refinements to the AF burden metric. The review is based on a presentation by the senior author during the 2023 16th annual European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS) congress in Paris, France.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Colombian Heart Failure Registry

Background

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) represent conditions that commonly coexist. The impact of AF in HF has yet to be well studied in Latin America. This study aimed to characterize the sociodemographic and clinical features, along with patients' outcomes with AF and HF from the Colombian Heart Failure Registry (RECOLFACA).

Methods

Patients with ambulatory HF and AF were included in RECOLFACA, mainly with persistent or permanent AF. A 6-month follow-up was performed. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. To assess the impact of AF on mortality, we used a logistic regression model. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. All statistical tests were two-tailed.

Results

Of 2,528 patients with HF in the registry, 2,514 records included information regarding AF diagnosis. Five hundred sixty (22.3%) were in AF (mean age 73 ± 11, 56% men), while 1,954 had no AF (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 58% men). Patients with AF were significantly older and had a different profile of comorbidities and implanted devices compared to non-AF patients. Moreover, AF diagnosis was associated with lower quality of life score (EuroQol-5D), mainly in mobility, personal care, and daily activity. AF was prevalent in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF), while no significant differences in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were observed. Although higher mortality was observed in the AF group compared to individuals without AF (8.9% vs. 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.016), this association lost statistical significance after adjusting by age in a multivariate regression model (odds ratio (OR): 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95 - 1.92).

Conclusions

AF is more prevalent in HF patients with higher EF, lower quality of life and different clinical profiles. Similar HF severity and non-independent association with mortality were observed in our cohort. These results emphasize the need for an improved understanding of the AF and HF coexistence phenomenon.

Association of HFA-PEFF score with clinical outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The Heart Failure Association Pretest assessment, echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, functional testing and final aetiology (HFA-PEFF) score has been developed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which is frequently associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to investigate whether preprocedural HFA-PEFF score could be used to predict clinical outcomes in patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation (CA).

METHODS

Overall, 1679 patients with AF who underwent primary CA (71±10 years, 1218 males (72.5%), median follow-up duration 3.3 years) from July 2011 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. HFpEF was defined as an HFA-PEFF score ≥5. The primary study outcome was 5-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which is a composite of all-cause death, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF) and hospitalisation for stroke.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HFpEF was 32.3%, but only 7.7% were diagnosed with HF at the time of CHADS2 scoring. Five-year MACCE occurred in 77 patients (4.6%). The cumulative 5-year incidence of MACCE was significantly higher in the HFpEF group than in the non-HFpEF group (11.2% vs 4.8% at 5 years, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, HFpEF by the HFA-PEFF score was associated with MACCE (adjusted HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.65, p=0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Early detection of HFpEF using the HFA-PEFF score may have clinical applications in guiding therapeutic decision-making and improving prognosis by preventing HF and stroke in patients with AF undergoing CA.

Evaluation of Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Therapeutic Characteristics, and Prognostic Outcomes of Coexisting Heart Failure among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib) Study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice. Heart failure (HF) can occur concurrently with AF.

AIM

We compared different demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic characteristics between patients with AF+HF and patients with AF only. Furthermore, we explored whether concurrent HF independently predicts several outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE), major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comparisons between the AF+HF and the AF-only group were carried out. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were constructed for each outcome to assess whether HF was predictive of any of them while controlling for possible confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 2020 patients were included in this study: 481 had AF+HF; 1539 had AF only. AF+HF patients were older, more commonly males, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease (p≤0.05). Furthermore, AF+HF patients more commonly had pulmonary hypertension and low ejection fraction (p≤0.001). Finally, HF was independently predictive of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.17, 95% CI (1.66-2.85) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.37, 95% CI (1.68-3.36).

CONCLUSION

Coexisting AF+HF was associated with a more labile and higher-risk population among Jordanian patients. Furthermore, coexisting HF independently predicted higher all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Efforts should be made to efficiently identify such cases early and treat them aggressively.

Heart failure in older patients with atrial fibrillation: incidence and risk factors

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is linked to heart failure (HF). However, little has been published on the factors that may precipitate the onset of HF in AF patients. We aimed to determine the incidence, predictors, and prognosis of incident HF in older patients with AF with no prior history of HF.

METHODS

Patients with AF older than 80 years and without prior HF were identified between 2014 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 5794 patients (mean age, 85.2±3.8 years; 63.2% women) were followed up for 3.7 years. Incident HF, predominantly with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, developed in 33.3% (incidence rate, 11.5-100 people-year). Multivariate analysis identified 11 clinical risk factors for incident HF, irrespective of HF subtype: significant valvular heart disease (HR, 1.99; 95%CI, 1.73-2.28), reduced baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 1.92; 95%CI, 1.68-2.19), chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (HR, 1.59; 95%CI, 1.40-1.82), enlarged left atrium (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.33-1.62), renal dysfunction (HR 1.36, 95%CI 1.24-1.49), malnutrition (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.21-1.46), anemia (HR, 1.30; 95%CI, 1.17-1.44), permanent AF (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.03-1.28), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.13; 95%CI, 1.01-1.27), age per year (HR, 1.04; 95%CI, 1.02-1.05), and high body mass index for each kg/m2 (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 1.02-1.04). The presence of incident HF nearly doubled the mortality risk (HR, 1.67; 95%CI, 1.53-1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of HF in this cohort was relatively frequent and nearly doubled the mortality risk. Eleven risk factors for HF were identified, expanding the scope for primary prevention among elderly patients with AF.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on cerebro-cardiovascular outcome of heart failure with mildly-reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often co-exist and are closely intertwined. The impact of AF on the outcome of patients with heart failure with mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is not fully clear. This study aimed to investigate the impact of AF on the outcomes of hospitalized HFmrEF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study included 1691 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (mean 68.2 years, 64.8% male) including 296 AF patients. Patients completed 1 year and mean of 33 month clinical follow-up after discharge by telephone interview, clinical visit, or community visit. The primary endpoint was cerebro-cardiovascular events (CCE, composite of HF rehospitalization, stroke, or cardiovascular death). After propensity score matching, 296 patients were included into the AF group (mean 71.5 years) and 592 patients into the non-AF group (mean 70.6 years). After propensity score matching, CCE at 1 year (59.1% vs. 48.5%, P = 0.003) and at a mean of 33 month (77.0% vs. 70.6%, P = 0.043). AF was independently associated with increased CCE within 1 year (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.61, P = 0.010) and at 33 months (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.43, P = 0.050) post-discharge after adjusted for other clinical confounders including discharge heart rate, NT-proBNP, haemoglobin, and uric acid.

CONCLUSIONS

AF is independently associated with an increased risk of CCE in HFmrEF patients within 1 year and at a mean of 33 months after discharge.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are highly prevalent cardiac disorders worldwide, and both are associated with poor prognosis. The incidence of AF and HF has been increasing substantially in recent years, mainly due to the progressive aging of the population. These disorders often coexist, and may have a causal relationship, with one contributing to the development or progression of the other. AF is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients, including mortality, hospitalization, and stroke. Although the optimal treatment for AF with HF remains unclear, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a promising treatment option. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of CA for managing AF in HF patients. In addition, the potential benefits and risks associated with CA are also discussed. We will also explore the factors that may influence treatment outcomes and highlight the remaining gaps in knowledge in this field.

A review of the impact, pathophysiology, and management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have increased mortality and increased risk of stroke. Due to the heterogeneous nature of both disease processes, it is difficult to ascertain whether the diagnosis and progression of AF is the cause of deterioration or if it is a symptom of worsening heart failure. This presents physicians with a clinical conundrum of whether optimizing their heart failure will decrease the overall AF burden or if restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary to optimize patients with HFpEF. In this paper, we will review the impact of AF in patients with HFpEF, the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of HFpEF and AF, and the management of these patients. As HFpEF and AF become more prevalent, managing these disease processes needs standardization to improve outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay between AF and HFpEF to help determine the best management strategy.

The Concept of "Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction": Time for a Critical Reappraisal

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is frequently observed in elderly physically deconditioned subjects, mainly women with hypertension, obesity, glucose intolerance/diabetes, atrial fibrillation, anaemia, coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and chronic renal insufficiency. In practice, these conditions represent the majority of cardiac diseases we deal with in our daily clinical practice. For this reason, the HFpEF disease does not exist as a single entity and, as such, no specific unifying therapy could be found. New classification attempts still do not consider the multifaceted aspect of the HF syndrome and appear rather as an artefactual attempt to categorize a condition which is indeed not categorizable. The aim of the present article is to critically review the construction of the concept of the HFpEF syndrome and propose the return of a pathophysiological approach in the evaluation and treatment of patients. Considering the huge economic efforts employed up to date to run awfully expensive trials and research in this field, it is time to call action and redirect such resources towards more specific pathophysiological classifications and potential specific therapeutic targets.

Empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is common in heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizations and slows estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in patients with HF and LVEF >40%. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in improving outcomes in patients with HF and LVEF >40% with and without AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this pre-defined secondary analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved, we compared the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the primary and secondary endpoints and safety outcomes, stratified by baseline AF, defined as AF reported in any electrocardiogram before empagliflozin initiation or in medical history. Among 5988 patients randomized, 3135 (52%) had baseline AF; these patients were older, with worse functional class, more previous HF hospitalizations and higher natriuretic peptides compared to those without AF (all p < 0.001). After a median of 26 months, empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization compared to placebo to a similar extent in patients with and without AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.66-0.93] vs. 0.78 [0.64-0.95], interaction p = 0.96). Empagliflozin also reduced total HF hospitalizations (HR 0.73 [0.57-0.94] vs. 0.72 [0.54-0.95], interaction p = 0.94) and annual eGFR decline (difference = 1.368 vs. 1.372 ml/min/1.73 m2 /year, interaction p = 0.99) consistently in patients with and without AF. There was no increase in serious adverse events with empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without AF.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF and ejection fraction >40%, empagliflozin reduced the risk of serious HF events and slowed the eGFR decline regardless of baseline AF.

Are arrhythmias the drivers of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? A review

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for approximately 25-30% of all-cause mortality and 40% of cardiovascular mortality in properly adjudicated large clinical trials. The mechanism of SCD in HFpEF remains unknown but thought to be driven by arrhythmic events. Apart from atrial fibrillation, which is prevalent in approximately 45% of HFpEF patients, the true burden of other cardiac arrhythmias in HFpEF remains undetermined. The incidence and risk of clinically significant advanced cardiac conduction disease with bradyarrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias remain less known. Recommendations have been made for long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and clarify mechanisms and mode of death in HFpEF patients. In animal studies, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD are significantly elevated in HFpEF animals compared with controls without heart failure. In humans, these studies are scant, with a few published small-size studies suggesting an increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in HFpEF. Higher rates of clinically significant conduction disease and cardiac pacing are seen in HFpEF compared with the general population. Excepting atrial fibrillation, the predictive effect of other arrhythmias on heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and precisely SCD remains unknown. Given the high occurrence of SCD in the HFpEF population, it could potentially become a target for therapeutic interventions if driven by arrhythmias. Studies to address these knowledge gaps are urgently warranted. In this review, we have summarized data on arrhythmias and SCD in HFpEF while highlighting avenues for future research in this area.

Prevalence and Prognostic Implication of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Subtypes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) portends a poor outcome. The HF universal definition has incorporated Heart Failure with mildly reduced Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF). We sought to evaluate the relationship between AF and different HF subtypes, with emphasis on HFmrEF.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to July 2022. Studies that classified HF with EF≥50% as Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF); EF 40%-49% as HFmrEF; and EF <40% as Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) were included.

RESULTS

Fifty (50) eligible studies, with 126,720 acute HF and 109,683 chronic HF patients, were included. Ten percent (10%) and 12% of patients constituted HFmrEF subtype in patients with acute and chronic HF, respectively. The AF prevalence was 38% (95%CI [33, 44], I²=96.9%) in HFmrEF, as compared to 43% (95%CI [39, 47], I²=97.9%) in HFpEF, and 32% (95%CI [29, 35], I² =98.6%) in HFrEF in acute HF patients. Meta-regression showed HFmrEF shared age as a determinant for AF prevalence with HFrEF and HFpEF. Similar AF prevalence also was observed in chronic HF. Compared to sinus rhythm, AF was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in all HF subtypes: HFmrEF (n=6; HR 1.28, 95%CI [1.08, 1.51], I²=71%), HFpEF (n=10; HR 1.14, 95%CI [1.06, 1.23], I²=55%) and HFrEF (n=9; HR 1.11, 95%CI [1.02, 1.21], I²=78%).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of AF was intermediate for HFmrEF in between HFpEF and HFrEF, with determinants shared with either HF subtype. The co-existence of AF and HF predicts an increased all-cause mortality across all categories of HF. (PROSPERO registry: CRD42021189411).

Does the Measurement of Ejection Fraction Still Make Sense in the HFpEF Framework? What Recent Trials Suggest

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is universally accepted as a cardiac systolic function index and it provides intuitive interpretation of cardiac performance. Over the last two decades, it has erroneously become the leading feature used by clinicians to characterize the left ventricular function in heart failure (HF). Notably, LVEF sets the basis for structural and functional HF phenotype classification in current guidelines. However, its diagnostic and prognostic role in patients with preserved or mildly reduced contractile function is less clear. This is related to several concerns due to intrinsic technical, methodological and hemodynamic limitations entailed in LVEF measurement that do not describe the chamber's real contractile performance as expressed by pressure volume loop relationship. In patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it does not reflect the effective systolic function because it is prone to preload and afterload variability and it does not account for both longitudinal and torsional contraction. Moreover, a repetitive measurement could be assessed over time to better identify HF progression related to natural evolution of disease and to the treatment response. Current gaps may partially explain the causes of negative or neutral effects of traditional medical agents observed in HFpEF. Nevertheless, recent pooled analysis has evidenced the positive effects of new therapies across the LVEF range, suggesting a potential role irrespective of functional status. Additionally, a more detailed analysis of randomized trials suggests that patients with higher LVEF show a risk reduction strictly related to overall cardiovascular (CV) events; on the other hand, patients experiencing lower LVEF values have a decrease in HF-related events. The current paper reports the main limitations and shortcomings in LVEF assessment, with specific focus on patients affected by HFpEF, and it suggests alternative measurements better reflecting the real hemodynamic status. Future investigations may elucidate whether the development of non-invasive stroke volume and longitudinal function measurements could be extensively applied in clinical trials for better phenotyping and screening of HFpEF patients.

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.

Impact of heart failure on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban. Data from the EMIR study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the presence of heart failure (HF) on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Observational and non-interventional study that included AF adults recruited from 79 Spanish centers, anticoagulated with rivaroxaban ≥ 6 months before inclusion. Data were analyzed according to baseline HF status.

RESULTS

Out of 1,433 patients, 326 (22.7%) had HF at baseline. Compared to patients without HF, HF patients were older (75.3 ± 9.9 vs. 73.8 ± 9.6 years; p = 0.01), had more diabetes (36.5% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.01), coronary artery disease (28.2% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.01), renal insufficiency (31.7% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.01), higher CHA2DS2-VASc (4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4; p < 0.01) and HAS-BLED (1.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 ± 1.0; p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, among HF patients, annual rates of stroke/systemic embolism/transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and cardiovascular death), cardiovascular death, and major bleeding were 1.2%, 3.0%, 2.0%, and 1.4%, respectively. Compared to those patients without HF, HF patients had greater annual rates of MACE (3.0% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.01) and cardiovascular death (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p < 0.01), without significant differences regarding other outcomes, including thromboembolic or bleeding events. Previous HF was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.6-7.3; p = 0.002) but not for thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Among AF patients anticoagulated with rivaroxaban, HF patients had a worse clinical profile and a higher MACE risk and cardiovascular mortality. HF was independently associated with the development of MACE, but not with thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

Breaking the Cycle of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Atrial Fibrillation

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and AF are two common cardiovascular conditions that are inextricably linked to each other's development and progression, often in multimorbid patients. Current management is often directed to specific components of each disease without considering their joint impact on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. The result for patients is suboptimal on all three levels, restricting clinicians from preventing major adverse events, including death, which occurs in 20% of patients at 2 years and in 45% at 4 years. New trial evidence and reanalysis of prior trials are providing a glimmer of hope that adverse outcomes can be reduced in those with concurrent HFpEF and AF. This will require a restructuring of care to integrate heart failure and AF teams, alongside those that manage comorbidities. Parallel commencement and non-sequential uptitration of therapeutics across different domains will be vital to ensure that all patients benefit at a personal level, based on their own needs and priorities.

Five-year mortality of heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in a 4880 Chinese cohort

Aims

Available evidence is incomplete and inconsistent in the outcomes of heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). There are also limited data on the proportions and long‐term prognosis among the three HF phenotypes in China. We aimed to characterize the 5 year prognosis in three HF phenotypes according to EF in a cohort of hospitalized HF patients undergoing coronary angiography in southern China.

Methods and results

Hospitalized patients with HF were enrolled from the Cardiorenal ImprovemeNt registry (CIN; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04407936) between January 2007 and December 2014. HF phenotypes were defined as HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%), HFmrEF (EF 41–49%), and HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%). Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to examine differences in 5 year outcomes in HF patients with different phenotypes. A total of 4880 HF patients [mean age: 61.8 ± 10.3, male: 3156 (64.7%)] were included: 2768 (57%) had HFpEF, 1015 (21%) had HFmrEF, and 1097 (22%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFrEF were older than those with HFpEF (62.5 ± 10.6 vs. 61.3 ± 10.1, P < 0.001) and more likely to be male (78.0% vs. 55.9%, P < 0.001). With 5 year follow‐up through the end of December 2019, 1624 (27.6%) patients died. Controlling confounding variables, declined EF category was independently associated with increased 5 year mortality {HFrEF 25.2% vs. HFpEF 13.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45 to 2.35]; HFmrEF 18.1% vs. HFpEF 13.4%, aHR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.08 to 1.81]; HFrEF 25.2% vs. HFmrEF 18.1%, aHR: 1.32 [95% CI: 1.02 to 1.71]}.

Conclusions

In this Chinese cohort, patients with HFrEF account for less than a fourth of HF patients. One‐sixth individuals with HF died in 5 years. HFrEF was associated with a nearly two‐fold increased risk of 5 year mortality than HFpEF. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of improving treatment on outcomes in all three HF phenotypes.

Predictors and Mortality for Worsening Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With HFpEF

Background

Definitions of declined left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) vary across studies and research results concerning the association of mortality with declined LVEF are inconsistent. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of early worsening LVEF on mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to establish independent predictors of early worsening LVEF.

Methods and Results

A total of 1,418 consecutive patients with HFpEF with LVEF remeasurement from the Cardiorenal Improvement registry were included in this study. Worsening LVEF was defined as an absolute decline ≥ 5% from baseline LVEF within 3 to 12 months after discharge. The Cox and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic effects and predictors for worsening LVEF, respectively. Among 1,418 patients with HFpEF, 457 (32.2%) patients exhibited worsening LVEF. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.3–4.0 years), 92 (6.5%) patients died. Patients with HFpEF with worsening LVEF had higher mortality relative to those with nonworsening LVEF [9.2 vs. 5.2%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 2.18, 95% CI: 1.35–3.52]. In the multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, baseline left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), LVEF, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), atrial fibrillation (AF), and diabetes mellitus (DM) emerged as predictive factors of worsening LVEF.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that about one out of three patients with HFpEF experiences worsening LVEF during follow-up, which is associated with 2.2-fold increased mortality. Increased LVEDD and LVEF, low HDL-C levels, AF, and DM were predictors of worsening LVEF. Further studies are needed to prospectively assess the efficacy of early active management on prognosis in patients with HF with worsening LVEF.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04407936.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment. Unlike HFrEF, treatment options are more limited in patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the data pertaining to the management of AF in these patients are controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of CA on outcomes of patients with AF and HFpEF, such as functional status, post-procedural complications, hospitalization, morbidity and mortality, based on data from observational studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for Central Register of Clinical Trials until May 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, the pooling of our data showed that sinus rhythm was achieved long-term in 58.0% (95% CI 0.44-0.71). Long-term AF recurrence was noticed in 22.3% of patients. Admission for HF occurred in 6.2% (95% CI 0.04-0.09) whilst all-cause mortality was identified in 6.3% (95% CI 0.02-0.13).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis is the first to focus on determining the benefits of a rhythm control strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF using CA, suggesting it may be worthwhile to investigate the effects of a CA rhythm control strategy as the default treatment of AF in HFpEF patients in randomized trials.

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 27 prospective studies were included. Patients with HFpEF were older and had a higher proportion of females, hypertension, diabetes, and insufficient neuroendocrine antagonist treatments, while patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease. After more than 1-year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF 9388/25 042 (37.49%) than those with HFrEF 39 333/90 023 (43.69%) and HFpEF 24 828/52 492 (47.30%) (p < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in patients with HFpEF 1130/9904 (11.41%), highest in patients with HFrEF 3419/16 277 (21.07%) mainly coming from HF death and sudden cardiac death, and middle in patients with HFmrEF 699/5171 (13.52%) and the non-cardiovascular mortality was on the contrary. Subgroup analysis showed that in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the all-cause mortality of HFpEF was significantly higher than both HFrEF and HFmrEF (p < .001). HF hospitalization was lowest in patients with HFmrEF 1822/5285 (34.47%), highest in patients with HFrEF 12 607/28 590 (44.10%) and middle in patients with HFpEF 8686/22 763 (38.16%) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was also observed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, while the highest all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates were HFpEF and HFrEF patients, respectively.

Comorbidities Associated with One-Year Mortality in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist and patients with both diseases have a worse prognosis than those with HF or AF alone. The objective of our study was to identify the factors associated with one-year mortality in patients with HF and AF, depending on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

We included 727 patients with HF and AF consecutively admitted in a clinical emergency hospital between January 2018 and December 2019. The inclusion criteria were age of more than 18 years, diagnosis of chronic HF and AF (paroxysmal, persistent, permanent), and signed informed consent. The exclusion criteria were the absence of echocardiographic data, a suboptimal ultrasound view, and other cardiac rhythms than AF. The patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 (337 patients with AF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)), group 2 (112 patients with AF and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)), and group 3 (278 patients with AF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)).

RESULTS

The one-year mortality rates were 36.49% in group 1, 27.67% in group 2, and 27.69% in group 3. The factors that increased one-year mortality were chronic kidney disease (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.45-3.83), coronary artery disease (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06-2.62), and diabetes (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05-2.67) in patients with HFrEF; and hypertension in patients with HFpEF (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36-4.39).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year mortality in patients with HF and AF is influenced by different factors, depending on the LVEF.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Two Chronic Troublemakers

In this article, the definition; mechanisms; diagnostic strategies, including scoring systems; treatments; prognosis; and future perspectives in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with atrial fibrillation, which are common comorbid conditions, are reviewed thoroughly.

Measurement of patient confidence in self-management of atrial fibrillation: Initial validation of the Confidence in Atrial fibriLlation Management (CALM) Scale

BACKGROUND

The patient experience of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves several daily self-care behaviors and ongoing confidence to manage their condition. Currently, no standardized self-report measure of AF patient confidence exists. The purpose of this study is to provide preliminary support for the reliability and validity of a newly developed confidence in AF management measure.

METHODS

This study provides preliminary analysis of the Confidence in Atrial FibriLlation Management (CALM) scale, which was rationally developed to measure patient confidence related to self-management of AF. The scale was provided to a sample of AF patients N = 120, (59% male) electronically through a patient education platform. Principal component analysis (PCA) and Cronbach's α were employed to provide preliminary assessment of the validity and reliability of the measure.

RESULTS

PCA identified a four-factor solution. Internal consistency of the CALM was considered excellent with Cronbach's α = .910. Additional PCA confirmed the value of a single factor solution to produce a total confidence score for improved utility and ease of clinical interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial assessment of a novel scale measuring patient confidence in managing AF provided promising reliability and validity. Patient confidence in self-management of AF may prove useful as a key marker and endpoint of the patient experience beyond QOL.

Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes

Traditionally, patients with heart failure (HF) are divided according to ejection fraction (EF) threshold more or <50%. In 2016, the ESC guidelines introduced a new subgroup of HF patients including those subjects with EF ranging between 40 and 49% called heart failure with midrange EF (HFmrEF). This group is poorly represented in clinical trials, and it includes both patients with previous HFrEF having a good response to therapy and subjects with initial preserved EF appearance in which systolic function has been impaired. The categorization according to EF has recently been questioned because this variable is not really a representative of the myocardial contractile function and it could vary in relation to different hemodynamic conditions. Therefore, EF could significantly change over a short-term period and its measurement depends on the scan time course. Finally, although EF is widely recognized and measured worldwide, it has significant interobserver variability even in the most accredited echo laboratories. These assumptions imply that the same patient evaluated in different periods or by different physicians could be classified as HFmrEF or HFpEF. Thus, the two HF subtypes probably subtend different responses to the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Similarly, the adaptation to hemodynamic stimuli and to metabolic alterations could be different for different HF stages and periods. In this review, we analyze similarities and dissimilarities and we hypothesize that clinical and morphological characteristics of the two syndromes are not so discordant.

Heart failure and atrial fibrillation: tachycardia-mediated acute decompensation

Aims

Tachycardia is a reversible event that may cause hemodynamic decompensation but may not necessarily cause direct damages to the myocardium. To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), whose acute decompensation was tachycardia mediated.

Methods and results

The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry was a prospective registry that consecutively enrolled 5625 patients with acute HF. Patients were classified into three groups according to the rhythm and aggravating factor: (i) 3664 (65.1%) patients with sinus rhythm (SR), (ii) 1033 (18.4%) patients with AF whose decompensation was tachycardia‐mediated, AF‐TM (+), and (iii) N = 928 (16.5%) patients with AF whose decompensation was not tachycardia‐mediated, AF‐TM (−). The primary outcomes were in‐hospital and post‐discharge 1 year all‐cause mortality. At admission, the mean heart rate was 90.8 ± 23.4, 86.8 ± 26.8, and 106.3 ± 29.7 beats per minute for the SR, AF‐TM (−), and AF‐TM (+) groups, respectively. The AF‐TM (+) group had more favourable characteristics such as de novo onset HF, less diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, and higher blood pressure than the AF‐TM (−) group. In‐hospital mortality rates were 5.1%, 6.5%, and 1.7% for SR, AF‐TM (−), and AF‐TM (+) groups, respectively. In logistic regression analysis, the AF‐TM (+) group had lower in‐hospital mortality after adjusting the significant covariates (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.93). The mortality rate did not differ between SR and AF‐TM (−) groups. During 1 year follow‐up, 990 (18.5%) patients died. In univariate and multivariate Cox proportional regression analyses, there was no difference in 1‐year all‐cause mortality between the three groups.

Conclusions

In patients with HF and AF, patients whose acute decompensation is tachycardia‐mediated have better in‐hospital, but similar post‐discharge outcomes compared with those with SR or those with AF whose decompensation is not tachycardia‐mediated.

Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01389843.

Sex-Specific Prevalence, Incidence, and Mortality Associated With Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the mortality associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in men and women with heart failure (HF) according to the sequence of presentation and rhythm versus rate control.

BACKGROUND

The sex-specific epidemiology of AF in HF is sparse.

METHODS

Using the Danish nationwide registries, all first-time cases of HF were identified and followed for all-cause mortality from 1998 to 2018.

RESULTS

Among 252,988 patients with HF (mean age: 74 ± 13 years, 45% women), AF presented before HF in 54,064 (21%) and on the same day in 27,651 (11%) individuals, similar in women and men. Among patients without AF, the cumulative 10-year incidence of AF was 18.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.2% to 19.1%) in women and 21.3% (95% CI: 21.0% to 21.6%) in men. On follow-up (mean: 6.2 ± 5.8 years), adjusted mortality rate ratios were 3.33 (95% CI: 3.25 to 3.41) in women and 2.84 (95% CI: 2.78 to 2.90) in men if AF antedated HF, 3.45 (95% CI: 3.37 to 3.56) in women versus 2.76 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.83) in men when AF and HF were diagnosed concomitantly, and 4.85 (95% CI: 4.73 to 4.97) in women versus 3.89 (95% CI: 3.80 to 3.98) in men when AF developed after HF. Compared with rate control for AF, a rhythm-controlling strategy was associated with lowered mortality in inverse probability-weighted models across all strata and in both sexes (hazard ratios: 0.75 to 0.83), except for women who developed AF after HF onset (hazard ratio: 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all men and women with HF will develop AF during their clinical course, with prognosis associated with AF being worse in women than men. Further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanisms.

Usefulness of CHADS2, R2CHADS2, and CHA2DS2-VASc scores for predicting incident atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients

Aims

Coexisting of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) could increase the risk of mortality. In this study, we aimed to assess the values of the CHADS2, R2CHADS2, and CHA2DS2‐VASc scores for AF prediction in HFpEF patients.

Methods and results

We performed a retrospective analysis on symptomatic HFpEF patients in the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial. Associations of the CHADS2, R2CHADS2, and CHA2DS2‐VASc scores with the risk of incident AF in HFpEF patients without baseline AF (n = 2202) were assessed using the multivariable competing risk regression models. The discriminatory performances of these scores were calculated using the C‐index. During a median follow‐up of 3.3 years, the average incidence of AF was 1.80 per 100 patient‐years in HFpEF patients. When score was analysed as a continuous variable, per 1‐point increase in the CHADS2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.68, C‐index: 0.71), R2CHADS2 (HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.10–1.42, C‐index: 0.69), or CHA2DS2‐VASc (HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.16–1.46, C‐index: 0.70) scores was associated with an increased risk of incident AF. When score was analysed as a categorical variable, patients with CHADS2 ≥ 3 (HR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.70–4.04), R2CHADS2 ≥ 3 (HR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.56–4.17), or CHA2DS2‐VASc ≥ 4 (HR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.59–4.07) had a higher risk of incident AF compared with the corresponding controls.

Conclusions

Our data first suggest that the CHADS2, R2CHADS2, and CHA2DS2‐VASc scores could predict the risk of incident AF in HFpEF patients with modest predictive abilities.