Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure (HF) patients and influences the choice and effects of drug and device therapy. In this large real-world HF registry, we studied whether the presence of AF affects the prescription of guideline-recommended HF therapy. We analyzed 8253 patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 34 Dutch outpatient clinics included in the period between 2013 and 2016 treated according to the 2012 ESC guidelines. 2109 (25.6%) of these patients were in AF (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 65.0% were men) and 6.144 (74.4%) had no AF (mean age 70.7 ± 12.2 years, 63.6% were men). Patients with AF more often received beta-blockers (81.7% vs. 79.7%, p = 0.04), MRAs (57.1% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.01), diuretics (89.7% vs. 80.6%, p < 0.01) and digoxin (40.1% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.01) compared to patients without AF, whereas they less often receive renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors (76.1% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). The number of patients who received beta-blockers, RAS-inhibitor and MRA at ≥50% of the recommended target dose was comparable between those with and without AF (16.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.07). In this large cohort of chronic HFrEF patients, the prevalence of AF was high and we observed significant differences in prescription of both guideline-recommended HF between patients with and without AF. • HFrEF patients with AF received more often beta-blockers, MRA, diuretics and digoxin. • HFrEF patients with AF received less often RAS-inhibitors. • More insight in the efficacy and adherence of HF therapy in AF patients is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Whether the clinical presentation and in particular prevalence of symptoms and signs of heart failure (HF) is different in elderly versus younger patients and in those with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a matter of ongoing debate. Aims To compare detailed clinical characteristics of these important subgroups and to develop a prediction rule for the differentiation of HFpEF and HFrEF based on clinical parameters. Methods The analysis was based on the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) comprising 622 patients ≥60 years with HF including the whole LVEF spectrum. Results In the groups ≥75 years and with HFpEF typical symptoms and clinical signs of HF were more prevalent as compared to those <75 years or with HFrEF, respectively. The burden of comorbidities was higher in the older age group. HFrEF could not be differentiated from HFpEF by symptom history and clinical examination alone. However, a combination of age, presence of pulmonary rales, systolic blood pressure, cause of heart failure, osteoporosis, current smoking, NT-proBNP, haemoglobin, QRS width and heart rhythm allowed to identify HFrEF versus HFpEF with a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 90% (c-statistics 0.91). Conclusions More symptoms and signs of HF were present both in the older age group and in patients with HFpEF. HFpEF versus HFrEF could be differentiated by a set of simple clinical, laboratory and ECG parameters but not by symptom history and physical examination alone. Highlights • Clinical presentation of heart failure was different in patients 60–74 vs ≥75 years. • Clinical presentation of heart failure was different in HFrEF vs HFpEF. • Symptoms and signs of HF were more prevalent in particular in the older age group. • HFrEF vs HFpEF could not be identified by symptom history and physical examination. • HFrEF vs HFrEF might be differentiated by clinical, laboratory and ECG parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cardiac remodeling and its reversibility are key in HF outcomes. The ST2-R2 score was recently developed to predict relevant left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling (R2) in patients with heart failure (HF). In the present study we sought to validate the ST2-R2 score for grading improvement in LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV size at one year, and to evaluate its prognostic implication up to 4 years. Methods A total of 569 patients with baseline LVEF < 40% from three international cohorts (Barcelona, TIME-CHF, and PROTECT) were included in the study. Patients were classified into four strata based on their ST2-R2 score, which took into account concentrations of the biomarker ST2, non-ischemic etiology, absence of left bundle branch block, HF duration, baseline LVEF, and β-blocker treatment. Results A significant relationship was observed between ST2-R2 scores and changes in LVEF and indexed LV sizes. LVEF recovery (from + 5.6% to + 17.3%; p < 0.001), percentage reduction in LV end-systolic volume index (from − 6.1% to − 32.1%; p < 0.001) and in LV end-systolic diameter index (from − 1.1% to − 18.6%; p < 0.001) increased over the ST2-R2 strata. A similar trend was observed with diastolic parameters. Improvement in LV function and size was inversely predictive of mortality. Hazard ratios for risk of death, using the lower ST2-R2 score strata (< 9) as a reference, were 0.49 (p < 0.001; score 9–11), 0.27 (p < 0.001; score 12–14), and 0.17 (p < 0.001; score 15–17). Conclusions The ST2-R2 score predicts reverse LV remodeling in HF patients and is useful for predicting mortality up to 4 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]