Search

Aims: Patients with heart failure usually have several other medical conditions that might alter the effects of interventions. We investigated whether the burden of comorbidity modified the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and results: Original patient‐level data from eight randomized trials exploring the effects of CRT versus no CRT were pooled (BLOCK‐HF, MIRACLE, MIRACLE‐ICD, MIRACLE‐ICD II, RAFT, COMPANION, MADIT‐CRT and REVERSE). A prior history of the following comorbidities was considered: episodic or persistent atrial fibrillation (n = 920), coronary artery disease (n = 3732), diabetes (n = 2171), and hypertension (n = 3353). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of comorbidities: 0, 1–2, or ≥3. The outcomes of interest were time to all‐cause mortality and time to the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or all‐cause mortality. Outcomes were evaluated within each comorbidity group using a Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression model. Of 6324 patients, 970 (15%) had no comorbidities, 4052 (64%) had 1–2 and 1302 (21%) had ≥3 comorbidities. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CRT versus no CRT for all‐cause mortality in the overall cohort was 0.79 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.68–0.93) (p = 0.010); for no comorbidities the aHR was 0.54 (95% CI 0.34–0.86), for 1–2 comorbidities was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.97) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64–1.07) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.13). For the endpoint of HFH or all‐cause mortality, the aHR for the overall cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.65–0.84) (p = 0.001), for no comorbidities was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50–0.94), for 1–2 comorbidities was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66–0.90) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.82) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.081). Conclusion: In a meta‐analysis of patient‐level data from eight major trials, the totality of evidence suggests that CRT reduces HFH and/or all‐cause mortality even when several comorbid diseases are present. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, NCT00180271. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New or mild heart failure (HF) is mainly caused by left ventricular dysfunction. We hypothesised that gene expression differ between the left (LV) and right ventricle (RV) and secondly by type of LV dysfunction. We compared gene expression through myocardial biopsies from LV and RV of patients undergoing elective coronary bypass surgery (CABG). Patients were categorised based on LV ejection fraction (EF), diastolic function and NT-proBNP into pEF (preserved; LVEF ≥ 45%), rEF (reduced; LVEF < 45%) or normal LV function. Principal component analysis of gene expression displayed two clusters corresponding to LV and RV. Up-regulated genes in LV included natriuretic peptides NPPA and NPPB, transcription factors/coactivators STAT4 and VGLL2, ion channel related HCN2 and LRRC38 associated with cardiac muscle contraction, cytoskeleton, and cellular component movement. Patients with pEF phenotype versus normal differed in gene expression predominantly in LV, supporting that diastolic dysfunction and structural changes reflect early LV disease in pEF. DKK2 was overexpressed in LV of HFpEF phenotype, potentially leading to lower expression levels of β-catenin, α-SMA (smooth muscle actin), and enhanced apoptosis, and could be a possible factor in the development of HFpEF. CXCL14 was down-regulated in both pEF and rEF, and may play a role to promote development of HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist. We explored AF incidence, prevalence, and treatment strategies in patients with versus without HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.We analysed patients with HF from the Swedish HF Registry (1 December 2005–31 December 2021), matched 1:1 by sex, age, and county of residence to patients without HF from Statistics Sweden. Two study cohorts were derived (i) to assess AF prevalence and treatments, and (ii) to evaluate AF incidence and related predictors. Overall, 195 106 patients were considered, 50% of them with HF (of whom 54% with HF with reduced [HFrEF], 23% mildly reduced [HFmrEF], and 23% with preserved EF [HFpEF]). From 2006 to 2021, AF prevalence increased in both patients with (57% to 58%) and without HF (8% to 11%). HF patients, particularly if with HFrEF, were more likely receiving AF treatments than those without HF. Over time, antiarrhythmic use decreased, while rate control drugs and oral anticoagulant use, and AF‐related procedures increased, regardless of HF and EF. During a median follow‐up of 3.7 years, in 86 210 patients without AF, incident AF risk was two‐fold higher in HF versus non‐HF (hazard ratio [HR] 2.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45–3.12), highest in HFpEF (HR 3.12, 95% CI 2.65–3.67) versus HFrEF (HR 2.68, 95% CI 2.34–3.06) and HFmrEF (HR 2.53, 95% CI 2.17–2.94).Atrial fibrillation prevalence, anticoagulant use, and AF‐related procedures increased over time regardless of HF, with HF patients more likely receiving AF treatments. In HF, despite higher AF prevalence and incidence in HFpEF, AF treatment use remained modest, calling for further implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation (DDAF) is unknown. Concomitant vascular disease can modify the benefits and risks of anticoagulation., Methods: These pre-specified analyses of the NOAH-AFNET 6 (n=2534 patients) and ARTESiA (n=4012 patients) trials compared anticoagulation to no anticoagulation in patients with DDAF with or without vascular disease, defined as prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, coronary or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy outcomes were the primary outcomes of both trials, a composite of stroke, systemic arterial embolism (SE), myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism or cardiovascular death, and stroke or SE. Safety outcomes were major bleeding or major bleeding and death., Results: In patients with vascular disease (NOAH-AFNET 6 56%, ARTESiA 46.0%), stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic or pulmonary embolism, or cardiovascular death occurred at 3.9%/patient-year with and 5.0%/patient-year without anticoagulation (NOAH-AFNET 6), and 3.2%/patient-year with and 4.4%/patient-year without anticoagulation (ARTESiA). Without vascular disease, outcomes were equal with and without anticoagulation (NOAH-AFNET 6 2.7%/patient-year, ARTESiA 2.3%/patient-year in both randomised groups). Meta-analysis found consistent results across both trials (I2heterogeneity=6%) with a trend for interaction with randomised therapy (pinteraction=0.08). Stroke/SE behaved similarly. Anticoagulation increased major bleeding in vascular disease patients (edoxaban 2.1%/patient-year, no anticoagulation 1.3%/patient-year; apixaban 1.7%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 1.1%/patient-year; incidence rate ratio 1.55 [1.10-2.20]) and without vascular disease (edoxaban 2.2%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 0.6%/patient-year; apixaban 1.4%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 1.1%/patient-year, incidence rate ratio 1.93 [0.72-5.20])., Conclusions: Patients with DDAF and vascular disease are at higher risk of stroke and cardiovascular events and may derive a greater benefit from anticoagulation than patients with DDAF without vascular disease., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The detailed sub-categories of death and hospitalization, and the impact of comorbidities on cause-specific outcomes, remain poorly understood in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We sought to evaluate rates and predictors of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV outcomes in HFpEF., Methods: The Karolinska-Rennes study was a bi-national prospective observational study designed to characterize HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥45%). Patients were followed for cause-specific death and hospitalization. Baseline characteristics were pre-selected based on clinical relevance and potential eligibility criteria for HFpEF trials. The associations between characteristics and cause-specific outcomes were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox regressions., Results: Five hundred thirty-nine patients [56% females; median (inter-quartile range) age 79 (72-84) years; NT-proBNP/BNP 2448 (1290-4790)/429 (229-805) ng/L] were included. Over 1196 patient-years follow-up [median (min, max) 744 days (13-1959)], there were 159 (29%) deaths (13 per 100 patient-years: CV 5.1 per 100, dominated by HF 3.9 per 100; and non-CV 5.8 per 100, dominated by cancer, 2.3 per 100). There were 723 hospitalizations in 338 patients (63%; 60 per 100 patient-years: CV 33 per 100, dominated by HF 17 per 100; and non-CV 27 per 100, dominated by lung disease 5 per 100). Higher age and natriuretic peptides, lower serum natraemia and NYHA class III-IV were independent predictors of CV death; lower serum natraemia, anaemia and stroke of non-CV death; and anaemia and lower serum natraemia of non-CV death or hospitalizations. There were no apparent predictors of CV death or hospitalization., Conclusions: In a clinical cohort hospitalized and diagnosed with HFpEF, death and hospitalization rates were roughly similar for CV and non-CV causes. CV deaths were predicted primarily by severity of HF; non-CV deaths primarily by anaemia and prior stroke. Lower serum sodium predicted both. Hospitalizations were difficult to predict., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: We aimed to externally validate the SEMMELWEIS-CRT score for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality in the European Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Survey I dataset-a large multi-centre cohort of patients undergoing CRT implantation., Methods and Results: The SEMMELWEIS-CRT score is a machine learning-based tool trained for predicting all-cause mortality in patients undergoing CRT implantation. This tool demonstrated impressive performance during internal validation but has not yet been validated externally. To this end, we applied it to the data of 1367 patients from the European CRT Survey I dataset. The SEMMELWEIS-CRT predicted 1-year mortality with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.729 (0.682-0.776), which concurred with the performance measured during internal validation [AUC: 0.768 (0.674-0.861), P = 0.466]. Moreover, the SEMMELWEIS-CRT score outperformed multiple conventional statistics-based risk scores, and we demonstrated that a higher predicted probability is not only associated with a higher risk of death [odds ratio (OR): 1.081 (1.061-1.101), P < 0.001] but also with an increased risk of hospitalizations for any cause [OR: 1.013 (1.002-1.025), P = 0.020] or for heart failure [OR: 1.033 (1.015-1.052), P < 0.001], a less than 5% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [OR: 1.033 (1.021-1.047), P < 0.001], and lack of improvement in New York Heart Association functional class compared with baseline [OR: 1.018 (1.006-1.029), P = 0.003]., Conclusion: In the European CRT Survey I dataset, the SEMMELWEIS-CRT score predicted 1-year all-cause mortality with good discriminatory power, which confirms the generalizability and demonstrates the potential clinical utility of this machine learning-based risk stratification tool., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.T. was a former employee of Argus Cognitive. M.T. has also received consulting fees from CardioSight, outside the submitted work. A.Kosz. has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Biotronik and personal fees from Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. A.Kov. has received personal fees from Argus Cognitive and CardioSight, outside the submitted work. L.G. has received lecture fees from Medtronic, Biotronik, Johnson & Johnson Medical, and Abbott, outside the submitted work. C.L. has received research support from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Swedish Royal Society of Science, Stockholm County Council, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, speaker honoraria from Novartis, Astra, Bayer, Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, and Impulse Dynamics and has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. B.M. has received personal fees from Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, as well as grants from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Subclinical atrial fibrillation is short-lasting and asymptomatic and can usually be detected only by long-term continuous monitoring with pacemakers or defibrillators. Subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke by a factor of 2.5; however, treatment with oral anticoagulation is of uncertain benefit., Methods: We conducted a trial involving patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting 6 minutes to 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive apixaban at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily when indicated) or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg daily. The trial medication was discontinued and anticoagulation started if subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting more than 24 hours or clinical atrial fibrillation developed. The primary efficacy outcome, stroke or systemic embolism, was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all the patients who had undergone randomization); the primary safety outcome, major bleeding, was assessed in the on-treatment population (all the patients who had undergone randomization and received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug, with follow-up censored 5 days after permanent discontinuation of trial medication for any reason)., Results: We included 4012 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 76.8±7.6 years and a mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 3.9±1.1 (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke); 36.1% of the patients were women. After a mean follow-up of 3.5±1.8 years, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year) and in 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007). In the on-treatment population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.57; P = 0.001). Fatal bleeding occurred in 5 patients in the apixaban group and 8 patients in the aspirin group., Conclusions: Among patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation, apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin but a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ARTESIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01938248.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)