Stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure according to heart failure type

Phenotypes of atrial fibrillation in a Taiwanese longitudinal cohort: Insights from an Asian perspective

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a condition with heterogeneous underlying causes, often involving multiple cardiovascular comorbidities. Large-scale studies examining the heterogeneity of patients with AF in the Asian population are limited.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to identify distinct phenotypic clusters of patients with AF and evaluate their associated risks of ischemic stroke, heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Methods

We analyzed 5002 adult patients with AF from the National Taiwan University Hospital between 2014 and 2019 using an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

Results

We identified 4 distinct groups of patients with AF: cluster I included diabetic patients with heart failure preserved ejection fraction as well as chronic kidney disease (CKD); cluster II comprised older patients with low body mass index and pulmonary hypertension; cluster III consisted of patients with metabolic syndrome and atherosclerotic disease; and cluster IV comprised patients with left heart dysfunction, including reduced ejection fraction. Differences in the risk of ischemic stroke across clusters (clusters I, II, and III vs cluster IV) were statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-3.48; HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.06-4.01; and HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.01). Cluster II was independently associated with the highest risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79-1.80), cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.21-5.22), and overall mortality (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.21-4.2).

Conclusion

A data-driven algorithm can identify distinct clusters with unique phenotypes and varying risks of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AF, enhancing risk stratification beyond the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

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.

Both HFpEF and HFmrEF should be included in calculating CHA2DS2-VASc score: A Taiwanese longitudinal cohort

BACKGROUND

Congestive heart failure (CHF) as a risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) mainly referred to patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Whether this should include patients with preserved ejection fraction is debatable.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to investigate the variation in stroke risk of AF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for enhancing risk assessment and subsequent management strategies.

METHODS

In a longitudinal study using the National Taiwan University Hospital integrated Medical Database, 8358 patients with AF were observed for 10 years (mean follow-up, 3.76 years). The study evaluated the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with differing ejection fractions and CHA2DS2-VASc score, further using Cox models adjusted for risk factors of AF-related stroke.

RESULTS

Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score compared with patients with HFrEF (4.30 ± 1.729 vs 4.15 ± 1.736 vs 3.73 ± 1.712; P < .001) and higher risk of stroke during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [1.161-1.688; P < .001] for HFmrEF; HR, 1.184 [1.075-1.303; P = .001] for HFpEF vs no CHF) after multivariate adjustment). In patients with lower CHA2DS2-VASc score (0-4), presence of any type of CHF increased ischemic stroke risk (HFrEF HR, 1.568 [1.189-2.068; P = .001]; HFmrEF HR, 1.890 [1.372-2.603; P < .001]; HFpEF HR, 1.800 [1.526-2.123; P < .001] vs no CHF).

CONCLUSION

After multivariate adjustment, HFpEF and HFmrEF showed a similar risk of stroke in AF patients. Therefore, it is important to extend the criteria for C in the CHA2DS2-VASc score to include patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. In patients with fewer concomitant stroke risk factors, the presence of any subtype of CHF increases risk for ischemic stroke.

Impact of left ventricular diastolic function and direct oral anticoagulant use for predicting embolic events in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) have high stroke risk owing to left atrial dysfunction. However, anticoagulation is a concern in patients with high bleeding risk. We aimed to identify independent predictors of stroke in HF patients with AF.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 320 patients (mean age 79 ± 12 years, 163 women) hospitalized with acute HF complicated by AF between January 2014 and December 2018. Patients were followed from admission until ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) onset or death or were censored at the last contact date or September 2023.

Results

SSE occurred in 40 patients (median follow-up of 528 days). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.07, p = .034), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.60, p = .002), and early diastolic peak flow velocity to early diastolic peak annular velocity (E/e'; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, p < .001) to be independent predictors of SSE, whereas left atrial reservoir strain was not. After determining an appropriate E/e' cutoff by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and adjusting the multivariate Cox model, E/e' ≥17.5 (HR 3.30, 95% CI 1.56-6.83, p = .001) independently predicted SSE. The results were consistent with no interaction in the subanalysis except for gender.

Conclusion

Elderly patients not on DOACs with elevated E/e' may be at higher risk of stroke, suggesting that DOACs should be the first choice for patients with elevated E/e' and aggressive additional prophylaxis and careful follow-up are needed.

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.

Association of hypertension burden with stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Whether the hypertension burden is associated with stroke incidence is inconclusive. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between hypertension burden and stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

HFpEF patients from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial were divided into three groups (low, medium, and high risk) according to their hypertension burden values. Higher hypertension burden risk represented the longer duration of hypertension. We evaluated the association of hypertension burden with stroke risk using Fine and Gray's competing risk models.

RESULTS

A total of 3431 HFpEF patients (mean age: 68.5 ± 9.58 years, 51.6% females) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, per 10-point increase in hypertension burden was associated with any stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.21), new-onset stroke (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21), and ischemic stroke (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.17). When hypertension burden was analyzed as a categorical variable, any stroke risk was increased in the medium- (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.40) and high-risk (HR 3.19, 95% CI 2.05-4.97) groups when compared with the low-risk group. For the outcomes of new-onset (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.80-4.74) and ischemic stroke (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.41-4.29), similar results were observed in patients with high-versus low-risk hypertension burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing hypertension burden was associated with an increased risk of stroke, suggesting that shortening hypertension duration might appropriately minimize the stroke incidence in HFpEF patients.

Atrial fibrillation: comorbidities, lifestyle, and patient factors

Modern anticoagulation therapy has dramatically reduced the risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF still impairs quality of life, increases the risk of stroke and heart failure, and is linked to cognitive impairment. There is also a recognition of the residual risk of thromboembolic complications despite anticoagulation. Hence, AF management is evolving towards a more comprehensive understanding of risk factors predisposing to the development of this arrhythmia, its' complications and interventions to mitigate the risk. This review summarises the recent advances in understanding of risk factors for incident AF and managing these risk factors. It includes a discussion of lifestyle, somatic, psychological, and socioeconomic risk factors. The available data call for a practice shift towards a more individualised approach considering an increasingly broader range of health and patient factors contributing to AF-related health burden. The review highlights the needs of people living with co-morbidities (especially with multimorbidity), polypharmacy and the role of the changing population demographics affecting the European region and globally.

Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes Between Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Different Types of Heart Failure

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) can be complicated by heart failure involving preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and whether or not the prognosis differs between the 2 types of patients remains unclear. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the 2 types of patients at 3 months after the stroke.We retrospectively analyzed patients who, between 1 January 2018 and 1 January 2021, experienced AIS that was complicated by HFrEF or HFpEF. All patients had been prospectively registered in the Chengdu Stroke Registry. Poor outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2-6 at 3 months. Univariate and binary logistic regression was used to assess whether HFpEF was associated with a significantly worse prognosis than HFrEF.Among the final sample of 108 patients (60.2% men; mean age, 73.08 ± 10.82 years), 75 (69.4%) had HFpEF. Compared to HFrEF patients, those with HFpEF were older (P = 0.002), were more likely to have chronic kidney disease (P = 0.033), and were more likely to experience a poor outcome (P = 0.022). After adjustments, HFpEF was associated with significantly greater risk of poor outcome than HFrEF (OR 4.13, 95%CI 1.20-15.79, P = 0.029). However, rates of hemorrhagic transformation or mortality at 3 months after AIS did not differ significantly between the 2 types of heart failure (all P > 0.05).Patients with AIS involving HFpEF experience worse outcomes than those with HFrEF and therefore may require special monitoring and management. Our findings need to be verified in large prospective studies.

Interaction of heart failure and stroke: A clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Stroke, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

Heart failure (HF) is a major disease in our society that often presents with multiple comorbidities with mutual interaction and aggravation. The comorbidity of HF and stroke is a high risk condition that requires particular attention to ensure early detection of complications, efficient diagnostic workup, close monitoring, and consequent treatment of the patient. The bi-directional interaction between the heart and the brain is inherent in the pathophysiology of HF where HF may be causal for acute cerebral injury, and - in turn - acute cerebral injury may induce or aggravate HF via imbalanced neural and neurovegetative control of cardiovascular regulation. The present document represents the consensus view of the ESC Council on Stroke, the Heart Failure Association and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis to summarize current insights on pathophysiological interactions of the heart and the brain in the comorbidity of HF and stroke. Principal aspects of diagnostic workup, pathophysiological mechanisms, complications, clinical management in acute conditions and in long-term care of patients with the comorbidity are presented and state-of-the-art clinical management and current evidence from clinical trials is discussed. Beside the physicians perspective, also the patients values and preferences are taken into account. Interdisciplinary cooperation of cardiologists, stroke specialists, other specialists and primary care physicians is pivotal to ensure optimal treatment in acute events and in continued long-term treatment of these patients. Key consensus statements are presented in a concise overview on mechanistic insights, diagnostic workup, prevention and treatment to inform clinical acute and continued care of patients with the comorbidity of HF and stroke.

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.

Predictive value of von Willebrand factor for venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation after anticoagulant therapy

BACKGROUND

We investigated the value of von Willebrand factor (vWF) in predicting venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation after anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

Totally, 126 patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation who were treated with anticoagulant therapy and 60 healthy individuals were enrolled. One year after anticoagulant therapy, venous thrombosis occurred in 19 patients. Clinical data of patients were collected. The plasma vWF activity was detected and compared. The logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the influencing factors of vWF. ROC curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of plasma vWF.

RESULTS

Plasma vWF activity was significantly higher in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation than control subjects (P < 0.01). The vWF activity in patients with venous thrombosis was significantly higher than that in patients without venous thrombosis (P < 0.01). ROC curve analysis showed that the cut-off value of vWF activity for venous thrombosis within one year after anticoagulant therapy was 267.5%, and the AUC was 0.742 (95% CI: 0.764-0.921, P < 0.05). The sensitivity was 80.0%, and the specificity was 63.6%. Factors of diabetes, myocardial ischemia, old myocardial infarction, and lower extremity atherosclerosis, but not sex, age, coronary heart disease, hypertension, and cardiac function, had significant effect on vWF activity (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that vWF activity was significantly related with atherosclerosis of lower limbs and old myocardial infarction, but not significantly related with diabetes and myocardial ischemia. The risk of venous thrombosis in patients with vWF activity greater than 267.5% was 10.667 times higher than that in patients with vWF activity less than 267.5% (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The vWF activity greater than 267.5% has clinical predictive value for the risk of lower extremity venous thrombosis in patients with chronic heart failure complicated with atrial fibrillation within 1 year of anticoagulant therapy.

Acute heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and myocardial infarction: a multi-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little research has been done on ischemic outcomes related to left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2001 and 2021 using the Chang Gung Research Database. ADHF Patients discharged from hospitals between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Cardiovascular (CV) mortality and heart failure (HF) rehospitalization are the primary outcome components, along with all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 12,852 ADHF patients were identified, of whom 2,222 (17.3%) had HFmrEF, the mean (SD) age was 68.5 (14.6) years, and 1,327 (59.7%) were males. In comparison with HFrEF and HFpEF patients, HFmrEF patients had a significant phenotype comorbid with diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease. Patients with HFmrEF were more likely to experience renal failure, dialysis, and replacement. Both HFmrEF and HFrEF had similar rates of cardioversion and coronary interventions. There was an intermediate clinical outcome between HFpEF and HFrEF, but HFmrEF had the highest rate of AMI (HFpEF, 9.3%; HFmrEF, 13.6%; HFrEF, 9.9%). The AMI rates in HFmrEF were higher than those in HFpEF (AHR, 1.15; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.99 to 1.32) but not in HFrEF (AHR, 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.87 to 1.13).

CONCLUSION

Acute decompression in patients with HFmrEF increases the risk of myocardial infarction. The relationship between HFmrEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy, as well as optimal anti-ischemic treatment, requires further research on a large scale.

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.

Essen Stroke Risk Score Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Evidence from the TOPCAT trial

BACKGROUND

 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with increased risks of stroke and other adverse outcomes.

AIMS

 This study sought to determine whether the Essen Stroke Risk Score (ESRS) could predict the risks of adjudicated clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial.

METHODS

 We evaluated associations of baseline ESRS with clinical outcomes by using the Cox proportional hazard model with competing risk regression. The diagnostic accuracy of the ESRS was assessed using the C-index and calibration data.

RESULTS

 Of 3,441 HFpEF patients with a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the risk of stroke ranged from 0.32% per year at an ESRS of 1 to 2 points to 1.71% per year at a score of ≥6 points. Each point increase in ESRS was associated with increased risks of primary composite outcome (hazard ratios [HRs] = 1.31; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.23-1.40; C-index = 0.68), stroke (HR = 1.33 [95% CI: 1.16-1.53]; C-index = 0.68), myocardial infarction (HR = 1.60 [95% CI: 1.40-1.83]; C-index = 0.75), HF hospitalization (HR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.20-1.41]; C-index = 0.71), any hospitalization (HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15-1.26; C-index = 0.68), cardiovascular death (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.20-1.44]; C-index = 0.68), and all-cause death (HR = 1.37, [95% CI: 1.28-1.48]; C-index = 0.68). The calibration curves showed that the ESRS had a better agreement between predicted and observed stroke risks compared with the R2CHADS2, CHADS2, or CHA2DS2-VASC stroke scores.

CONCLUSION

 The ESRS had modest discriminatory abilities for predicting stroke as well as other adverse outcomes including myocardial infarction, hospitalization, and death in HFpEF patients. ESRS might have better calibration performance than R2CHADS2, CHADS2, or CHA2DS2-VASC in HFpEF at high risk for stroke.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Coexistence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, affecting morbidity and prognosis. This study evaluates outcome after cryoballoon ablation for AF in HFpEF compared with patients without heart failure.

METHODS

A total of 102 AF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% undergoing cryoballoon ablation were prospectively enrolled. Baseline evaluation included echocardiography, stress echocardiography, 6-minute walk test, biomarkers, and quality of life assessment (Short-Form-36). Procedural parameters and clinical, functional and echocardiographic end points at follow-up ≥12 months after AF ablation were compared between patients with and without HFpEF.

RESULTS

Patients with HFpEF (n=24) were older (median, 74 years versus 65 years; P=0.001) more often female (83% versus 28%; P<0.001) and characterized by more pronounced AF-related symptoms (median European Heart Rhythm Association score 3 versus 2; P<0.001), higher left atrial pressures (median, 14 mm Hg versus 10 mm Hg; P=0.008), reduced left atrial-appendage velocity (median, 36 cm/s versus 59 cm/s; P<0.001), and reduced distance in the 6-minute walk test (median, 488 m versus 539 m; P<0.001). Patients with HFpEF more often experienced AF recurrence (57% versus 23%; P=0.003), repeat AF ablation (39% versus 14%; P=0.01) and AF-related rehospitalization (26% versus 7%; P=0.016). Heart failure symptoms and elevated cardiac biomarkers persisted, even in patients with HFpEF with successful rhythm control at follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up showed progression of adverse left atrial remodeling and no relevant improvement in diastolic function in HFpEF. Quality of life improved in patients without HFpEF, whereas patients with HFpEF still exhibited a lower physical component summary score (median, 41.5 versus 53.4; P<0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF constitute a distinct subgroup with elevated risk for AF recurrence after cryoballon ablation. Functional hallmarks of HFpEF persist, irrespective of rhythm status at follow-up. Future research is needed to optimize treatment strategies in patients with HFpEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04317911.

Usefulness of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide for Predicting the Risk of Stroke in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a well-known biomarker for prognosis in heart failure with patients with preserved ejection fraction. However, the clinical predictive ability of BNP for the risk of stroke in HFpEF is not clear. Methods and Results A total of 799 patients with HFpEF from the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial were included. Association of baseline BNP with risk of stroke was assessed using the Cox proportional hazard model. The discriminatory ability of BNP was expressed using the C index. The improvement in 5-year stroke prediction was assessed by C statistic, categorical net reclassification improvement index, and relative integrated discrimination improvement. A total of 34 (4.3%) patients among the 799 patients with HFpEF experienced stroke events over a median of 2.85 years of follow-up. The stroke group showed a higher BNP level than the nonstroke group (375 pg/mL versus 241 pg/mL, respectively; P=0.006). Higher BNP levels were associated with increased risk of stroke after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 3.29 [95% CI, 1.51-7.16]) and had a moderate performance for stroke prediction (C index, 0.67). Adding BNP to CHADS2/CHA2DS2-VASc/R2CHADS2 scores improved their predictive value for stroke (CHADS2: C index, 0.67; BNP+CHADS2: C index, 0.77; net reclassification improvement, 40.9%; integrated discrimination improvement, 3.0%; CHA2DS2-VASc: C index, 0.64; BNP+CHA2DS2-VASc: C index, 0.74; net reclassification improvement, 41.4%; integrated discrimination improvement, 2.2%; R2CHADS2: C index, 0.70; BNP+R2CHADS2: C index, 0.78; net reclassification improvement, 40.9%; integrated discrimination improvement, 3.2%). Conclusions BNP is associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients with HFpEF and may be a valuable biomarker for stroke prediction in HFpEF.

Stroke and Thromboembolism in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm: A Matter of Risk Stratification?

Patients with heart failure (HF) in sinus rhythm (SR) experience an increased incidence of thromboembolic events including stroke. Among patients with HF, high-quality evidence supports the use of oral anticoagulation when atrial fibrillation (AF) is present, but the benefit of anticoagulation in SR in absence of other known indications for anticoagulation is unclear. In four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), warfarin did not improve a composite of clinical outcomes compared with aspirin or placebo in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and SR. A recent RCT assessed the efficacy of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with HFrEF (including mildly reduced ejection fraction), SR and coronary artery disease. While rivaroxaban had a neutral effect on the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, or all-cause mortality, exploratory analyses revealed a significant reduction in strokes. It is thus possible that a subgroup of patients with HFrEF who are at high risk of stroke may benefit from anticoagulation. The challenge is to adequately identify this subgroup and to balance the potential benefit of anticoagulation with the risk of major bleeding. There is also an unmet need for evidence around anticoagulation in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and SR. This review explores the current evidence around anticoagulation in patients with HF and SR, identifies challenges regarding outcome definitions and patient selection, and offers suggestions for future research.

Stroke and Bleeding Risk Assessment in Atrial Fibrillation: Where Are We Now?

Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulants (OACs) is the cornerstone for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is crucial to assess the stroke and bleeding risks of individual AF patients to make appropriate decisions for OAC use and achieve optimal patient care. In this review, we provided an overview on the correct use of CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, and update important revisions about the definitions of some of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc components. Also, data about the biomarkers and potential roles of AF duration and left atrial functions in the prediction of stroke in AF were also discussed.

Most important international guidelines recommend the use of CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores for stroke and bleeding risk assessments in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, respectively. The 2020 AF guidelines of European Society of Cardiology have revised the definition of “C: congestive heart failure (HF)” component, and now patients with either HF with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction should be assigned 1 point. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was also included. Besides, the revised “V: vascular diseases” component included both prior myocardial infarction and “angiographically significant coronary artery disease”. It is important to understand that the stroke and bleeding risks of AF patients were not static and should be re-assessed regularly. A high HAS-BLED score itself should not be the only reason to withhold or discontinue oral anticoagulants, but remind physicians for the corrections of modifiable bleeding risk factors and more regular follow up. In the future, the AF duration and left atrial function may play an important role for personalized evaluation of individual stroke risk while more studies are necessary.

Stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure according to heart failure type

Aims

This study aimed to elucidate the risk for stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) according to HF type.

Methods and results

A total of 10 780 patients with atrial fibrillation were enrolled in a multicentre prospective registry and divided according to HF type: no‐HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF), HF with mid‐range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). Each group included 237 age‐matched and sex‐matched patients (age, 69.0 ± 10.3 years; men, 69.6%). The baseline characteristics, cumulative incidence, and hazard ratios for stroke/SE and major bleeding were compared across the groups. Patients with HF accounted for 10.3% of the total population; HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF represented 43.7%, 23.6%, and 32.7% of the patients with HF, respectively. The CHA₂DS₂‐VASc score was significantly higher in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF groups than in the no‐HF group. The annual stroke/SE incidence rates were 2.8%, 0.7%, 1.1%, and 0.9% in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF, and no‐HF groups, respectively. The cumulative incidence of stroke/SE was significantly highest in the HFpEF group at 22.8 ± 10.0 months (P = 0.020). The stroke/SE risk was higher in the HFpEF group than in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups (hazard ratio, 3.192; 95% confidence interval, 1.039–9.810; P = 0.043). E/e' value was an independent risk factor for stroke/SE. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major bleeding across the groups.

Conclusions

The stroke/SE risk was the highest in the HFpEF group and comparable between the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups.