Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Insights on a unique clinical phenotype from a nationally-representative United States cohort

Clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation among older patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction hospitalized for acute heart failure

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are often coexisting conditions, but their interrelationship has not yet been clarified. This study investigated the clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of AF among older patients with HFpEF hospitalized for acute HF (AHF). The study included patients 65 years of age and older who were admitted to the Emergency Department due to AHF from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of AF. The primary endpoint was all-cause, in-hospital mortality. Overall, 770 patients with HFpEF were included, mean age 82 years, 53% were females. Nearly, a third (30%) of these patients had a concomitant AF and they were significantly older and had higher N-Terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was much higher among HFpEF patients with AF compared to those without AF (11.4% vs 6.9%, respectively; p = 0.037). At multivariate analysis, AF emerged as an independent risk factor for death (OR 1.73 [1.03-2.92]; p = 0.038). Among older patients with HFpEF admitted for AHF, the coexistence of AF was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of all-cause in-hospital mortality. Patients with HFpEF and AF describe a phenotype of older and more symptomatic patients, with higher NT-proBNP, left atrial enlargement, right ventricular dysfunction, and higher CV mortality.

Comparison of His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing with Atrial-Ventricular Node Ablation and Pharmacotherapy in HFpEF Patients with Recurrent Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (HPP-AF study)

BACKGROUND

There is currently no particularly effective strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation accompanying heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially with recurrent atrial fibrillation after ablation. In this study, we will evaluate a new treatment strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who had at least two attempts (≧2 times) of radio-frequency catheter ablation but experienced recurrence, and physiologic conduction was reconstructed after atrioventricular node ablation or drug therapy, to control the patient's ventricular rate to maintain a regular heart rhythm, which is called His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) with atrioventricular node ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This investigator-initiated, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit 296 randomized HFpEF patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. All the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the pacing group or the drug treatment group. The primary endpoint is differences in cardiovascular events and clinical composite endpoints (all-cause mortality) between patients in the HPCSP and drug-treated groups. Secondary endpoints included heart failure hospitalization, exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise tests, quality of life, echocardiogram parameters, 6-minute walk distance, NT-ProBNP, daily patient activity levels, and heart failure management report recorded by the CIED. It is planned to compete recruitment by the end of 2023 and report in 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The study aims to determine whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing with atrioventricular node ablation can better improve patients' symptoms and quality of life, postpone the progression of heart failure, and reduce the rate of rehospitalization and mortality of patients with heart failure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900027723, URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=46128&htm=4.

Dapansutrile Ameliorates Atrial Inflammation and Vulnerability to Atrial Fibrillation in HFpEF Rats

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have demonstrated that NLRP3 inflammasomes are key players in the progression of atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aimed to analyse the effect of pharmacological inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasomes using dapansutrile (DAPA), an oral NLRP3-specific inhibitor.

METHODS

Dahl salt-sensitive rats were fed a high-salt diet (HSD, 8% NaCl) to induce HFpEF. Either DAPA (200 mg/kg/day) or saline was administered daily via gavage for 4 weeks. Electrophysiological studies were performed to assess the AF inducibility. Confocal fluorescence microscopy and western blot analysis were used to study calcium handling.

RESULTS

The DAPA-treated HFpEF rats were less prone to AF induction by programmed electrical stimulation. Atrial fibrosis and inflammation were attenuated in DAPA-treated HFpEF hearts. Dapansutrile treatment showed an increase in the Ca2+ transient sarcoplasmic reticulum-Ca2+ load, and protein expression of SERCA2; NCX1 and phosphorylation of PLB at Thr17 were decreased following DAPA treatment. The increased frequency of spontaneous Ca2+ spark in the HFpEF rats was related to the hyperphosphorylation of RyR2 at Ser2814, which was blunted in DAPA treatment. Dapansutrile treatment also decreased the phosphorylation of CaMKII expression in the HFpEF rats. Mechanistically, DAPA exerts an anti-arrhythmic effect, mainly by inhibiting activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.

CONCLUSION

These data provide evidence that the beneficial cardiac effects of DAPA are associated with reduced atrial inflammation and improved CaMKII-dependent Ca2+-handling abnormalities via blunting activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, and DAPA may be beneficial in a rat model of HFpEF-induced AF.

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.

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.

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.

Confirm Rx insertable cardiac monitor for primary atrial fibrillation detection in high-risk heart failure patients (Confirm-AF trial)

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) represent a large population of patients who are at high risk for complications related to undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). However, currently there are limited modalities available for early AF detection in this high-risk population. An implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is inserted subcutaneously and can provide long-term arrhythmia information via remote monitoring.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Confirm-AF is a prospective randomized, nonblinded, two arm, multicenter clinical trial to be performed in the United States, enrolling 477 patients with a history of HF hospitalization and left ventricular ejection fraction >35% from 30 medical sites. Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to undergo ICM implant with remote monitoring and symptom-triggered mobile app transmissions versus (vs.) Non-ICM management and follow-up. The primary objective of this trial is to compare the time to first detection of AF lasting > 5 min using an Abbott ICM compared to non-ICM monitoring in symptomatic HF patients. This article describes the design and analytic plan for the Confirm-AF trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The Confirm-AF trial seeks to accurately define the burden of AF in high-risk HF patients with LVEF > 35% using an Abbott ICM. A finding showing significantly higher incidence of AF along with improved clinical outcomes with ICM monitoring is expected to have substantial clinical implications and may change the method of monitoring high-risk HF patients.

Outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

Limited real-world data exist on early outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare rates of index procedural complications and 30-day readmissions after AF ablation in patients with HFpEF, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and without heart failure.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), we examined 50,299 admissions of adults with heart failure undergoing AF catheter ablation between 2010 and 2014. Using ICD-9-CM codes, we identified procedural complications and causes of readmission after AF ablation.

Results

From 2010 to 2014, the prevalence of HFpEF among patients undergoing AF ablation increased from 3.05% to 7.35% (P for trend <.001). Compared to patients without heart failure, patients with HFpEF had significantly increased procedural complications and index mortality (8.4% vs 6.2% and 0.30% vs 0.08%, respectively; P = .016 and P = .010, respectively). Index complication rates between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF were similar. All-cause 30-day readmissions occurred in 18.3% of patients with HFpEF compared to 9.5% of patients without heart failure (P <.001). Compared to no heart failure, the presence of HFpEF was independently associated with all-cause readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.96; P = .002), but not with procedural complications, cardiac readmissions, or early mortality.

Conclusion

Rates of 30-day readmissions after AF ablation are high in patients with HFpEF. However, after adjustment for age and comorbidities, complications and early mortality after AF ablation between patients with HFpEF and those without heart failure are comparable.

Atrial fibrillation is an independent risk factor for heart failure hospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbid condition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The effect of AF on heart failure (HF) exacerbation in HFpEF has not been well described. This study investigated how AF modifies the clinical trajectory of HFpEF patients after hospitalization for decompensated HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We stratified HFpEF subjects by AF diagnosis and performed longitudinal analysis to compare risk for HF hospitalization after index hospitalization for decompensated HF. All-cause mortality, 30 day all-cause readmissions, and response to inpatient diuresis were also evaluated. Of 90 subjects enrolled, 35.6% (n = 32) had AF. Subjects with AF were older (72.5 vs. 60.5 years; P < 0.01), more often male (46.9% vs. 24.1%; P = 0.03), and had greater left atrial diameter (4.9 vs. 3.8 cm; P < 0.01) compared with those without AF. Subjects with AF had a higher risk for HF hospitalization than their counterparts without AF (P = 0.02); this relationship remained significant following multivariable competing risk regression with propensity score weighting (hazard ratio 2.53, P = 0.04 and hazard ratio 2.91, P = 0.04, with overlap and inverse probability weighting, respectively). Although having AF appeared to increase the risk of all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (37.5% vs. 17.5%; P = 0.036), this relationship failed to remain significant following propensity score adjustment for clinical covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation is an independent risk factor for HF rehospitalization in HFpEF. Further understanding of the interplay between AF and HFpEF will be critical to guide the selection of appropriate rhythm management strategies in this population.

Understanding the Pathobiology of Pulmonary Hypertension Due to Left Heart Disease

The development of pulmonary hypertension (PH) is common and has adverse prognostic implications in patients with heart failure due to left heart disease (LHD), and thus far, there are no known treatments specifically for PH-LHD, also known as group 2 PH. Diagnostic thresholds for PH-LHD, and clinical classification of PH-LHD phenotypes, continue to evolve and, therefore, present a challenge for basic and translational scientists actively investigating PH-LHD in the preclinical setting. Furthermore, the pathobiology of PH-LHD is not well understood, although pulmonary vascular remodeling is thought to result from (1) increased wall stress due to increased left atrial pressures; (2) hemodynamic congestion-induced decreased shear stress in the pulmonary vascular bed; (3) comorbidity-induced endothelial dysfunction with direct injury to the pulmonary microvasculature; and (4) superimposed pulmonary arterial hypertension risk factors. To ultimately be able to modify disease, either by prevention or treatment, a better understanding of the various drivers of PH-LHD, including endothelial dysfunction, abnormalities in vascular tone, platelet aggregation, inflammation, adipocytokines, and systemic complications (including splanchnic congestion and lymphatic dysfunction) must be further investigated. Here, we review the diagnostic criteria and various hemodynamic phenotypes of PH-LHD, the potential biological mechanisms underlying this disorder, and pressing questions yet to be answered about the pathobiology of PH-LHD.

Temporal Trends in Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Heart Failure and Diabetes

Aims

We aimed to assess temporal trends in outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and compared both groups.

Methods

Data from the National Inpatient Sample was analyzed between 2005 and 2017. We assessed hospitalizations rate and in-hospital mortality, ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), atrial fibrillation (AF), cardiogenic shock (CS), ischemic stroke, acute renal failure (ARF), and revascularization strategy. Socio-economic outcomes consisted of the length of stay (LoS) and total charges/stay.

Results

Hospitalization rate steadily decreased with time in STEMI patients with diabetes and HFrEF. Mean age (SD) decreased from 71 ± 12 to 67 ± 12 (p < 0.01), while the prevalence of comorbidities increased. Mortality was stable (around 9%). However, VT, VF, AF, CS, ischemic stroke, and ARF significantly increased with time. In STEMI patients with HFpEF and diabetes, the hospitalization rate significantly increased with time while mean age was stable. The prevalence of comorbidities increased, mortality remained stable (around 4%), but VF, ischemic stroke, and ARF increased with time. Compared to patients with HFrEF, HFpEF patients were 2 years older, more likely to be females, suffered from more cardio-metabolic risk factors, and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases. However, HFpEF patients were less likely to die [adjusted OR = 0.635 (0.601-0.670)] or develop VT [adjusted OR = 0.749 (0.703-0.797)], VF [adjusted OR = 0.866 (0.798-0.940)], ischemic stroke [adjusted OR = 0.871 [0.776-0.977)], and CS [adjusted OR = 0.549 (0.522-0.577)], but more likely to develop AF [adjusted OR = 1.121 (1.078-1.166)]. HFpEF patients were more likely to get PCI but less likely to get thrombolysis or CABG. Total charges per stay increased by at least 2-fold in both groups. There was a slight temporal reduction over the study period in the LoS of the HFpEF.

Conclusion

While hospitalizations for STEMI in patients with diabetes and HFpEF followed an upward trend, we observed a temporal decrease in those with HFrEF. Mortality was unchanged in both HF groups despite the temporal increase in risk factors. Nevertheless, HFpEF patients had lower in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular events, except for AF.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in HFpEF patients-A propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are both common conditions associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially if they coexist. Catheter ablation (CA) for AF has been shown recently to induce reverse remodeling and improve symptoms in HFpEF patients. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of AF patients with HFpEF, who either underwent CA for AF or received medical therapy only.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included all AF patients with HFpEF according to current guidelines treated at our hospital between 2013 and 2018. Out of 6614 AF patients, we identified 127 with confirmed HFpEF. After applying propensity score matching to balance patient groups, 43 patients treated by CA and 43 patients receiving medical treatment were compared. Patients in the CA group underwent a mean of 1.5 ± 0.8 ablation procedures. Arrhythmia recurrence occurred significantly less frequently in the CA group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.87; p = .016). The primary endpoint, a composite of heart failure hospitalization and death, was reduced significantly by CA compared to medical therapy (HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.13-0.67; p = .003). This was driven by a decrease in heart failure hospitalization. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters of HFpEF improved significantly only after CA. Remarkably, reassessment of diagnostic HFpEF criteria at the end of follow-up demonstrated HFpEF resolution in 15 out of 43 patients (35%) treated by CA and only 4 out of 43 patients (9%) treated medically (p = .008).

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF patients in comparison to medical therapy decreases heart failure hospitalization, heart failure symptoms, and improves diastolic function. AF ablation should be considered in patients with HFpEF and concomitant AF.

Meta-Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); However, the prognostic impact of AF on HFpEF patients has not been fully elucidated.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases on literature published through April 2019 was undertaken. Combined hazard ratio (HR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen (14) eligible studies with 1,948,923 patients with HFpEF were included in the analysis. Atrial fibrillation was associated with an 11% increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09-1.12). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the results. The stratification of studies by controlled or uncontrolled confounding factors affected the final estimate (confounder-controlled HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.30; confounder-uncontrolled HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96-1.31). In addition, AF was an independent predictor of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15-1.52), cardiovascular death (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.89) and stroke (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.54-2.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation was associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Further investigation is required to see whether AF is the primary offender in these patients or merely a bystander to worse diastolic function.

Restoration of sinus rhythm by pulmonary vein isolation improves heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in atrial fibrillation patients

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with increased symptoms and higher morbidity and mortality. Effective treatment strategies for this patient population have not yet been established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed clinical outcomes and echocardiographic parameters of patients with AF and HFpEF who underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Out of 374 PVI patients, we identified 35 patients suffering from concomitant HFpEF. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) after 1 year was 80%. Heart failure symptoms assessed by New York Heart Association class significantly improved from 2.7 ± 0.7 to 1.7 ± 0.9 (P < 0.001). We observed regression of diastolic dysfunction by echocardiography 12 months after the index procedure. Moreover, 15 patients (42.9%) experienced complete resolution of HFpEF after a single ablation procedure. Multivariate logistic regression revealed absence of AT recurrence as an independent predictor of recovery from HFpEF (hazard ratio 11.37, 95% confidence interval 1.70-75.84, P = 0.009). Furthermore, resolution of HFpEF by achieving freedom from AT recurrence by PVI, including multiple procedures, led to a significant reduction of hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that restoration of sinus rhythm by PVI in HFpEF patients with concomitant AF induces reverse remodelling, improvement of symptoms, resolution of HFpEF and subsequently decrease of hospitalizations. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Performance of Electronic Health Record Diagnosis Codes for Ambulatory Heart Failure Encounters

BACKGROUND

There is interest in leveraging the electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve knowledge and understanding of patients' characteristics and outcomes of patients with ambulatory heart failure (HF). However, the diagnostic performance of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) -10 diagnosis codes from the EMRs for patients with HF and with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF or HFpEF) in the ambulatory setting are unknown.

METHODS

We examined a cohort of patients aged ≥ 18 with at least 1 outpatient encounter for HF between January 2016 and June 2018 and an echocardiogram conducted within 180 days of the outpatient encounter for HF. We defined HFrEF encounters as those with ICD-10 codes of I50.2x (systolic heart failure); and we defined HFpEF encounters as those with ICD-10 codes of I50.3x (diastolic heart failure). The referent definitions of HFrEF and HFpEF were based on echocardiograms conducted within 180 days of the ambulatory encounter for HF RESULTS: We examined 68,952 encounters of 14,796 unique patients with HF. The diagnostic performance parameters for HFrEF (based on ICD-10 I50.2x only) depended on LVEF cutoff, with a sensitivity ranging from 68%-72%, specificity 63%-68%, positive predictive value 47%-63%, and negative predictive value 73%-84%. The diagnostic performance parameters for HFpEF depended on left ventricular ejection fraction cut-off, with sensitivity ranging from 34%-39%, specificity 92%-94%, positive predictive value 86%-93%, and negative predictive value 39%-54%.

CONCLUSIONS

ICD-10 coding abstracted from the EMR for HFrEF vs HFpEF in the ambulatory setting had suboptimal diagnostic performance and, thus, should not be used alone to examine HFrEF and HFpEF in the ambulatory setting.

Addressing Comorbidities in Heart Failure: Hypertension, Atrial Fibrillation, and Diabetes

Heart failure (HF) is a growing global epidemic and an increasingly cumbersome burden on health care systems worldwide. As such, optimal management of existing comorbidities in the setting of HF is particularly important to prevent disease progression, reduce HF hospitalizations, and improve quality of life. In this review, the authors address 3 key comorbidities commonly associated with HF: hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus. They comprehensively describe the epidemiology, management, and emerging therapies in these 3 disease states as they relate to the overall HF syndrome.

Advancing Research on the Complex Interrelations Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Report From a US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.

Diagnostic value of echocardiographic markers for diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of echocardiographic markers of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in comparison with the gold standard of cardiac catheterization. Diagnosing HFpEF is challenging, as symptoms are non-specific and often absent at rest. A clear need exists for sensitive echocardiographic markers to diagnose HFpEF. We systematically searched for studies testing the diagnostic value of novel echocardiographic markers for HFpEF and LVDD. Two investigators independently reviewed the studies and assessed the risk of bias. Results were meta-analysed when four or more studies reported a similar diagnostic measure. Of 353 studies, 20 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was high especially in the patients' selection domain. The highest diagnostic performance was demonstrated by a multivariable model combining echocardiographic, clinical and arterial function markers with an area under the curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98). A meta-analysis of four studies indicated a reasonable diagnostic performance for left atrial strain with an AUC of 0.83 (0.70-0.95), a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 90-97%) and a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 59-96%). Moreover, the addition of exercise E/e' improved the sensitivity of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms up to 90%, compared with 60 and 34% of guidelines alone. Despite the heterogeneity of the included studies, this review supported the current multivariable-based approach for the diagnosis of HFpEF and LVDD and showed a potential diagnostic role for exercise echocardiography and left atrial strain. Larger well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the incremental value of novel diagnostic tools to current diagnostic algorithms.

Decreased Mortality with Beta-Blocker Therapy in HFpEF Patients Associated with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

There are no proven effective treatments that can reduce the mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), probably due to its heterogeneous nature which will weaken the effect of therapy in clinical studies. We evaluated the effect of beta-blocker treatment in HFpEF patients associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), which is a homogeneous syndrome and has seldom been discussed.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study screened 955 patients diagnosed with AF and HFpEF. Patients with a range of underlying heart diseases or severe comorbidities were excluded; 191 patients were included and classified as with or without beta-blocker treatment at baseline. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models were used to evaluate the differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 49 months. After adjustment for multiple clinical risk factors and biomarkers for prognosis in heart failure, patients with beta-blocker treatment were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.405, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.233-0.701, p=0.001) compared with those without beta-blocker treatment. However, the risk of rehospitalization due to heart failure was increased in the beta-blocker treatment group (HR = 1.740, 95% CI = 1.085-2.789, p=0.022). There was no significant difference in all-cause rehospitalization between the two groups (HR = 1.137, 95% CI = 0.803-1.610, p=0.470).

CONCLUSIONS

In HFpEF patients associated with AF, beta-blocker treatment is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, but it increased the risk of rehospitalization due to heart failure.

Sex differences of resource utilisation and outcomes in patients with atrial arrhythmias and heart failure

Objective

Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) and heart failure (HF) often go hand in hand and, in combination, lead to an increased risk of death compared with patients with just one of both entities. Sex-specific differences in patients with AF and HF are under-reported. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate sex-specific catheter ablation (CA) use and acute in-hospital outcomes in patients with AF and concomitant HF in a retrospective cohort study.

Methods

Using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and Operations and Procedures codes, administrative data of 75 hospitals from 2010 to 2018 were analysed to identify cases with AF and HF. Sex differences were compared for baseline characteristics, right and left atrial CA use, procedure-related adverse outcomes and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 54 645 analysed cases with AF and HF, 46.2% were women. Women were significantly older (75.4±9.5 vs 68.7±11.1 years, p<0.001), had different comorbidities (more frequently: cerebrovascular disease (2.4% vs 1.8%, p<0.001), dementia (5.3% vs 2.2%, p<0.001), rheumatic disease (2.1% vs 0.8%, p<0.001), diabetes with chronic complications (9.7% vs 9.1%, p=0.033), hemiplegia or paraplegia (1.7% vs 1.2%, p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (43.7% vs 33.5%, p<0.001); less frequently: myocardial infarction (5.4% vs 10.5%, p<0.001), peripheral vascular disease (6.9% vs 11.3%, p<0.001), mild liver disease (2.0% vs 2.3%, p=0.003) or any malignancy (1.0% vs 1.3%, p<0.001), underwent less often CA (12.0% vs 20.7%, p<0.001), had longer hospitalisations (6.6±5.8 vs 5.2±5.2 days, p<0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (1.6% vs 0.9%, p<0.001). However, in the multivariable generalised linear mixed model for in-hospital mortality, sex did not remain an independent predictor (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, p=0.579) when adjusted for age and comorbidities. Vascular access complications requiring interventions (4.8% vs 4.2%, p=0.001) and cardiac tamponade (0.3% vs 0.1%, p<0.001) occurred more frequently in women, whereas stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%, p=0.179) and death (0.3% vs 0.1%, p=0.101) showed no sex difference in patients undergoing CA.

Conclusions

There are sex differences in patients with AF and HF with respect to demographics, resource utilisation and in-hospital outcomes. This needs to be considered when treating women with AF and HF, especially for a sufficient patient informed decision making in clinical practice.

Prevalence and in-hospital mortality during arrhythmia-related admissions in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

BACKGROUND

Although outcomes of arrhythmia diagnosis have been described in ambulatory tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) patients, these have not been studied in hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and in-hospital mortality due to arrhythmias in TOF patients based on a review of the National Inpatient Sample database.

METHODS

Admissions in adult TOF patients (2000-2014) were categorized as arrhythmia-related admission (ARA) or non-arrhythmia-related admission (NRA) based on arrhythmia diagnostic codes.

RESULTS

Of 18,353 admissions, 5071 (27.6%) were ARA. The most common arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation (15.5%), atrial flutter (8.4%) and ventricular tachycardia (8.2%), and the prevalence of overall ARA as well as specific arrhythmia types increased over time. In-hospital mortality for ARA was 5.4%, and decreased over time. Arrhythmia diagnosis was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 1.34-2.01, p = 0.001). Similarly, atrial fibrillation (OR 1.49, 1.18-1.89, p = 0.001) and ventricular tachycardia (OR: 2.01, 1.55-2.98, p = 0.001) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Compared to small bed-size hospital, ARA in large hospital bed-size hospital was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.71, 0.53-0.96, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Atrial fibrillation was the most common arrhythmia in hospitalized TOF patients, and arrhythmia diagnosis (specifically atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, while admission to a large bed-size hospital was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality. Further studies are required to determine if a more proactive approach to arrhythmia management in the ambulatory TOF population will reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

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

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are tightly interrelated. The concurrence of these pathologies can aggravate the pathological process. The geographic and ethnic characteristics of patients may significantly affect the efficacy of different types of therapy and patients' compliance. The objective of this study was to analyze how the features of the course of the diseases and management of HF + AF influence the clinical outcomes.

Methods

The data of 1,003 patients from the first Russian register of patients with chronic heart failure and atrial fibrillation (RIF-CHF) were analyzed. The endpoints included hospitalization due to HF worsening, mortality, thromboembolic events, and hemorrhage. Predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (AF + HFpEF), midrange ejection fraction (AF + HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (AF + HFrEF). Prevalence of HF + AF and compliance with long-term treatment of this pathology during one year were evaluated for each patient.

Results

The study involved 39% AF + HFpEF patients, 15% AF + HFmrEF patients, and 46% AF + HFrEF patients. AF + HFpEF patients were significantly older than patients in two other groups (40.6% of patients were older than ≥75 years vs. 24.8%, respectively, p < 0.001) and had the lowest rate of prior myocardial infarctions (25.3% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) and the lowest adherence to rational therapy of HF (27.4% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). AF + HFmrEF patients had the highest percentage of cases of HF onset after AF (61.3% vs. 49.2% in other patient groups, p=0.021). Among patients with AF + HFrEF, there was the highest percentage of males (74.2% vs. 41% in other patient groups, p < 0.001) and the highest percentage of ever-smokers (51.9% vs. 29.4% in other patient groups, p < 0.001). A total of 57.2% of patients were rehospitalized for decompensation of chronic heart failure within one year; the risk was the highest for AF + HFmrEF patients (66%, p=0.017). Reduced ejection fraction was associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (15.5% vs. 5.4% in other patient groups, p < 0.001) rather than ischemic stroke (2.4% vs. 3%, p=0.776). Patients with AF + HFpEF had lower risk to achieve the combination point (stroke + IM + CV death) as compared to patients with AF + HFmrEF and AF + HFrEF (12.7% vs. 22% and 25.5%, p < 0.001). Regression logistic analysis revealed that factors such as demographic characteristics, disease severity, and administered treatment had different effects on the risk of unfavorable outcomes depending on ejection fraction group. The clinical features and symptoms were found to be significant risk factors of cardiovascular mortality in AF + HFmrEF, while therapy characteristics were not associated with it.

Conclusions

Each group of patients with different ejection fractions is characterized by its own pattern of factors associated with the development of unfavorable outcomes. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with midrange ejection fraction demonstrate that these patients need to be studied as a separate cohort.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis: Insights from a nationally-representative United States cohort

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased all-cause mortality in the general population. However, the impact of AF on the in-hospital outcomes of acute myocarditis (AM) patients is not well characterized.

METHODS

Patients (age ≥ 18 years) with a primary diagnosis of AM in the National Inpatient Sample from 2007 to 2014 were included, using the ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes. We compared the in-hospital outcomes between the AF group and propensity score-matched control group without AF.

RESULTS

AF was reported in 602 (9%) of the AM patients. Compared to those without AF, AM patients with AF experienced higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.7, P = 0.02). AF was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.8, P < 0.001), cardiac tamponade (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.2-25.3, P = 0.002) and acute kidney injury (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P = 0.02). Furthermore, patients with AF were more likely to have non-routine hospital discharge (31.6% vs 38.4% P = 0.02), longer length of stay and higher cost of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

AF was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and complications in patients admitted to the hospital with acute myocarditis.