Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Heart Failure with Different Ejection Fractions: RIF-CHF Register One-Year Follow-Up

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to predict mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Development and validation of the HF-DANAS score

AIMS

The morbidity and mortality of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continue to increase with the accelerating global aging process. During the past decade, the pathophysiology, diagnostic methods, and prognostic prediction of HFpEF have been revolutionized, resulting in new and effective management strategies. Dynamic prognostic assessment facilitates systematic clinical management of patients, and the aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for mortality in patients with HFpEF and to develop a risk prediction assessment model.

METHODS AND REULTS

Data for the derivation cohort were obtained from three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The validation cohort was obtained from the Chinese Heart Failure Center database. The β-coefficient was calculated based on the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) corresponding to each risk factor to construct a mortality risk assessment model. A total of 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis: 22 prospective cohort studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, including 34 196 HFpEF patients. Seven predictors of all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients were derived. Considering the need for feasibility in clinical practice, we performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses and determined the following cutoff values: age > 75 years (RR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.83-2.35; P < 0.001), male sex (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.59; P < 0.001), DM (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11-1.36; P < 0.001), anaemia (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.41-1.67; P < 0.001), albumin concentration < 3.2 g/dL (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.14-1.47; P < 0.001), AF (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43; P < 0.001), and NYHA class III/IV (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.43-1.87; P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for this model was 71.3% (95% CI: 0.696-0.736), with an optimal cut-off value of 10.75. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.778 and 0.566, respectively. According to this risk score, we divided patients into three risk classes (low, moderate, and high risk), the numbers of patients who died by the end of the 1-year follow-up were 23 (1.87%), 82 (5.62%), and 382 (15.52%) in these three groups, and the 5-year mortality rates were 9.82%, 20.68%, and 43.28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed an HF-DANAS scoring system for the HFpEF mortality risk containing seven predictors, providing clinicians with a simple assessment tool that can help improve clinical management.

[Sacubitril/valsartan in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and worsening heart failure: A review]

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

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.

Prevalence and incidence of stroke, white matter hyperintensities, and silent brain infarcts in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is associated with ischemic stroke (IS). However, there are limited studies on the prevalence of IS, white matter hyperintensities (WMHs), and silent brain infarcts (SBIs). Furthermore, interaction with ejection fraction (EF) is unclear.

Methods

We searched three databases (viz., PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) for studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of IS, WMHs, and SBIs in HF. A total of two authors independently selected included studies. We used random-effects models, and heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 statistic. Meta-regression was used for subgroup analysis.

Results

In total, 41 articles involving 870,002 patients were retrieved from 15,267 records. Among patients with HF, the pooled proportion of IS was 4.06% (95% CI: 2.94–5.59), and that of WMHs and SBIs was higher at 15.67% (95% CI: 4.11–44.63) and 23.45% (95% CI: 14.53–35.58), respectively. Subgroup analysis of HFpEF and HFrEF revealed a pooled prevalence of 2.97% (95% CI: 2.01–4.39) and 3.69% (95% CI: 2.34–5.77), respectively. Subgroup analysis of WMH Fazekas scores 1, 2, and 3 revealed a decreasing trend from 60.57 % (95% CI: 35.13–81.33) to 11.57% (95% CI: 10.40–12.85) to 3.07% (95% CI: 0.95–9.47). The relative risk and hazard ratio of patients with HF developing IS were 2.29 (95% CI: 1.43–3.68) and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.22–2.18), respectively. Meta-regression showed IS prevalence was positively correlated with decreasing anticoagulant usage.

Conclusion

We obtained estimates for the prevalence of IS, WMH, and SBI in HF from systematic review of the literature.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=255126, PROSPERO [CRD42021255126].

Treatment strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic heart failure

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and may lead to the development of chronic heart failure (CHF). Each condition predisposes to the other, requiring a careful choice of the treatment strategy. This article is devoted to the prevalence and prognostic implications of both diseases. The article presents data from meta-analyzes related to the management of this group of patients. The aspects of rhythm control strategy in AF and concomitant CHF are described according to the recent studies and clinical guidelines. The features of anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF and CHF are outlined. Much attention is given to the importance of the safety profile of the anticoagulant therapy in terms of the bleeding risk in patients with concomitant AF and CHF.

Rhythm Control in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis

Background The presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) dramatically increases higher morbidity and mortality. Recent studies have suggested that early rhythm control may alleviate the burden of poor outcomes. Currently, there remain limited data on whether rhythm or rate control has better efficacy. This study sought to compare both strategies in HFpEF patients with AF. Methods Databases were searched throughout 2020. Studies that reported cardiovascular outcomes amongst HFpEF patients with AF who received either rhythm or rate control were included. Estimates of the effects from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random-effects, a generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. Results Five observational studies were included in the analysis, consisting of 16,953 patients, 13.8% of whom were receiving rhythm control. In comparison with rate control, rhythm control was associated with decreased overall mortality rates (pooled RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.95, with I² = 0%, p value = 0.009). Conclusions In HFpEF patients with AF, rhythm control was associated with lower mortality, compared to rate control. Further studies are warranted to validate our observation.

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.

Sex Differences in the Association between Atrial Fibrillation and 90-Day Adverse Outcomes among Older Adults with Heart Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Sex differences in the prognostic impact of coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF) in older patients with heart failure (HF) have not been well-studied. This study, therefore, compared sex differences in the association between AF and its 90-day adverse outcomes (hospital readmissions and emergency room (ER) visits) among older adults with HF. Of the 250 older adult patients, the prevalence rates of coexisting AF between male and female HF patients were 46.0% and 31.0%, respectively. In both male and female older patients, patients with AF have a significantly higher readmission rate (male 46.0%, and female 34.3%) than those without AF (male 6.8%, and female 12.8%). However, there are no significant differences in the association between AF and ER visits in both male and female older HF patients. The multivariate logistic analysis showed that coexisting AF significantly increased the risk of 90-day hospital readmission in both male and female older patients. In addition, older age in males and longer periods of time after an HF diagnosis in females were associated with an increased risk of hospital readmission. Consequently, prospective cohort studies are needed to identify the impact of coexisting AF on short- and long-term outcomes in older adult HF patients by sex.