Search

Aims: Benefits of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF) have not been established. Conventional randomized controlled trials are complex and expensive. The Spironolactone Initiation Registry Randomized Interventional Trial in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (SPIRRIT‐HFpEF) is a unique pragmatic registry‐based randomized controlled trial. Methods: SPIRRIT‐HFpEF is a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open‐label, blinded endpoint trial conducted on platforms in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) and the United States (US) Trial Innovation Network. Patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF are randomized 1:1 to spironolactone (or eplerenone) in addition to usual care, versus usual care alone. The primary outcome is total number of cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations for heart failure. Outcomes are collected from Swedish administrative complete coverage registries and a US call centre and subsequently adjudicated. Simple eligibility criteria were based on data available in SwedeHF: heart failure as outpatient or at discharge from hospital, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide >300 ng/L (in sinus rhythm) or >750 ng/L (in atrial fibrillation), with pre‐specified adjustment for elevated body mass index, and chronic loop diuretic use. Power and sample size assessments were based on an event‐driven design allowing enrolment over approximately 6 years, and application of hazard ratios from the TOPCAT trial, Americas subset. The final sample size is expected to be approximately 2400 patients. Conclusion: SPIRRIT‐HFpEF will be informative on the effectiveness of generic MRAs in HFpEF and HFmrEF, and on the feasibility of conducting pragmatic and registry‐based trials in heart failure and other chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diastolic dysfunction refers to impaired relaxation or filling of the ventricles during the diastolic phase of the cardiac cycle. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is common in hypertensive individuals and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. LVDD serves as a critical precursor to heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The pathophysiology of LVDD in hypertension is complex, involving alterations in cardiac structure and function, neurohormonal activation, and vascular stiffness. While the diagnosis of LVDD relies primarily on echocardiography, management remains challenging due to a lack of specific treatment guidelines for LVDD. This review offers an overview of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying LVDD in hypertension, diagnostic methods, clinical manifestations, strategies for managing LVDD, and prospects for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite remarkable improvements in the management of heart failure (HF), HF remains one of the most rapidly growing cardiovascular condition resulting in a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. In clinical practice, however, a relevant proportion of patients are treated with suboptimal combinations and doses lower than those recommended in the current guidelines. Against this background, it remains important to identify new targets and investigate additional therapeutic options to alleviate symptoms and potentially improve prognosis in HF. Therefore, non‐pharmacological interventions targeting autonomic imbalance in HF have been evaluated. This paper aims to review the physiology, available clinical data, and potential therapeutic role of device‐based neuromodulation in HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the challenges of treating heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients who have polypharmacy, or the concurrent use of five or more medications. Polypharmacy is common in this patient population and can raise concerns about adherence, adverse events, and drug interactions. However, recent studies have shown that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), including medications like angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), can improve outcomes in patients with HFpEF and polypharmacy. A post-hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF trial found that the use of sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNI) was associated with a reduction in the risk of adverse outcomes, regardless of polypharmacy status. However, there are limitations to this analysis, and further research is needed to fully understand the interaction between HFpEF therapies and polypharmacy. Overall, this study suggests that while polypharmacy is associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF, GDMT may help mitigate these risks. [Extracted from the article]

Despite significant therapeutic advancements in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the residual risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations remains high among patients with HFrEF. Vericiguat is a novel oral soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulator which was approved by the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) in January 2021 for use in patients with symptomatic chronic HF and an ejection fraction less than 45% following a hospitalization for HF or the need for outpatient intravenous diuretics. We provide a concise review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of vericiguat in HFrEF. We also discuss the role of vericiguat in current clinical practice. Vericiguat reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalizations by an absolute event-rate reduction of 4.2 events per 100 patient-years with a number needed to treat of 24 patients, on a background of guideline-directed medical therapy. Almost 90% of the patients with HFrEF were adherent to the 10 mg dose of vericiguat in the VICTORIA trial with a favorable tolerability and safety profile. Considering the high residual risk that persists in HFrEF, vericiguat has a role to improve outcomes among patients with worsening HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulmonary arterial pressures are often used as surrogates for intravascular blood volume. However, the relationship between pressure and volume remains controversial. To contextualize and provide concrete examples and impact on clinical management, we report two cases of heart failure (one in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and one in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) where pressure‐based measurements did not accurately represent the intravascular status and affected clinical management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We aimed to investigate the impact of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and examine potential differences in prognostic utility for heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study conducted hospital surveillance of ADHF from 2005 to 2014. Obstructive CAD was defined as ≥50% or ≥75% stenosis, respectively, for the left main and other major epicardial arteries. Adjusted associations between obstructive CAD and 30‐, 60‐, and 90‐day mortality were analysed. A total of 934 (4146 weighted) patients admitted with ADHF (mean age 72 years, 46% women, 30% Black, 30% HFpEF) had available angiography (61% performed in hospital). Obstructive CAD was more prevalent with HFrEF than HFpEF, whether at the left main (15% vs. 11%), left anterior descending (LAD) (48% vs. 30%), left circumflex (37% vs. 32%), right coronary (42% vs. 32%), or multiple coronary arteries (45% vs. 33%). In‐hospital revascularization was performed in 25% and 22% of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively. Obstructive CAD was associated with higher adjusted mortality, particularly with left main or LAD involvement, and had a more pronounced association with 90‐day mortality in HFrEF (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–5.02) than HFpEF (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.36–2.41) (p‐interaction = 0.05). Conclusion: Patients hospitalized with ADHF and coexisting obstructive CAD have higher short‐term mortality, warranting the need for effective interventions and secondary prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Synchronized diaphragmatic stimulation (SDS) modulates intrathoracic and intra‐abdominal pressures with favourable effects on cardiac function for patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure (HFrEF). VisONE‐HF is a first‐in‐patient, observational study assessing the feasibility and 1 year effects of a novel, minimally invasive SDS device. Methods and results: The SDS system comprises a pulse generator and two laparoscopically delivered, bipolar, active‐fixation leads on the inferior diaphragmatic surface. Fifteen symptomatic men with HFrEF and ischaemic heart disease receiving guideline‐recommended therapy were enrolled (age 60 [56, 67] years, New York Heart Association class II [53%] /III [47%], LVEF 27 [23, 33] %, QRSd 117 [100, 125] ms, & N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide [NT‐proBNP] 1779 [911, 2,072] pg/mL). Implant success was 100%. Patients were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months for device‐related or lead‐related complications, quality of life (SF‐36 QOL), 6 min hall walk distance (6MHWd), and by echocardiography. No implant procedure or SDS‐related adverse event occurred, and patients were unaware of diaphragmatic stimulation. By 12 months, left ventricular end‐systolic volume decreased (136 [123, 170] mL to 98 [89, 106] mL; P = 0.05), 6MHWd increased (315 [300, 330] m to 340 [315, 368] m; P = 0.004), and SF‐36 QOL improved (physical scale 0 [0, 0] to 25 [0, 50], P = 0.006; emotional scale 0 [0, 33] to 33 [33, 67], P = 0.001). Although neither reached statistical significance, LVEF decreased (28 [23, 40]% vs. 34 [29, 38]%; P = ns) and NT‐proBNP was lower (1784 [920, 2540] pg/mL vs. 1492 [879, 2028] pg/mL; P = ns). Conclusions: These data demonstrate the feasibility of laparoscopic implantation and delivery of SDS without raising safety concerns. These encouraging findings should be investigated further in adequately powered randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Novel pharmacologic treatment options reduce mortality and morbidity in a cost‐effective manner in patients with heart failure (HF). Undisputedly, the effective implementation of these agents is an essential element of good clinical practice, which is endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on acute and chronic HF. Yet, physicians struggle to implement these therapies as they have to balance the true and/or perceived risks versus their substantial benefits in clinical practice. Any worsening of biomarkers of renal function is often perceived as being disadvantageous and is in clinical practice one of the most common reasons for ineffective drug implementation. However, even in this context, they clearly reduce mortality and morbidity in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, even in patients with poor renal function. Furthermore these agents are also beneficial in HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors more recently demonstrated a beneficial effect in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The emerge of several new classes (angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI], SGLT2 inhibitors, vericiguat, omecamtiv mecarbil) and the recommendation by the 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF of early initiation and titration of quadruple disease‐modifying therapies (ARNI/angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor + beta‐blocker + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and SGLT2 inhibitor) in HFrEF increases the likelihood of treatment‐induced changes in renal function. This may be (incorrectly) perceived as deleterious, resulting in inertia of starting and uptitrating these lifesaving therapies. Therefore, the objective of this consensus document is to provide advice of the effect HF drugs on renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure. As a result, we sought to compare mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with and without diabetes. The Veteran Affairs Hospitals' databases were queried to identify all veterans diagnosed with HFrEF from 2007 to 2015. From the overall sample of 165,159 veterans, 41,120 patients with diabetes were matched by their propensity scores (without replacement) 1:1 to non-diabetic patients. To estimate the association between diabetes (Type 1 and 2) and overall mortality of HFrEF patients, a Cox proportional hazard model was used on the matched sample and controlled for patient characteristics for a mean follow up of 3.6 years (standard deviation ±2.3). In a matched sample of 41,120 veterans with HFrEF with and without diabetes, those with diabetes and HFrEF were more often on guideline-directed medical therapy than those without diabetes. In the matched cohort, the mortality risk for patients with concurrent HFrEF and diabetes was 17.7% at 1 year and 74.3% at 5 years, whereas the mortality risk for those without diabetes was 15.3% at 1 year and 69.2% at 5 years. After controlling for patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, heart rate, medical therapies, comorbidities, medications, low-density lipoproteins, high-density lipoproteins, we found that patients with diabetes compared to those without had a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.77–1.92, p < 0.001). Diabetic HFrEF patients have a higher risk of mortality than non-diabetic HFrEF patients despite controlling for medical therapies and comorbidities. • Diabtes is frequently encountered in patients with heart failure • Patients with diabetes and HFrEF are more often on guideline-directed medical therapy than those without • Patients with diabetes and HFrEF are more often on guideline-directed medical therapy than those without • Patients with concurrent diabetes and HFrEF have a higher risk of mortality [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Iron deficiency (ID) is associated with poor prognosis regardless of anaemia. Intravenous iron improves quality of life and outcomes in patients with ID and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the Swedish HF registry, we assessed (i) frequency and predictors of ID testing; (ii) prevalence and outcomes of ID with/without anaemia; (iii) use of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and its predictors in patients with ID. Methods and results: We used multivariable logistic regressions to assess patient characteristics independently associated with ID testing/FCM use, and Cox regressions to assess risk of outcomes associated with ID. Of 21 496 patients with HF and any ejection fraction enrolled in 2017–2018, ID testing was performed in 27%. Of these, 49% had ID and more specifically 36% had ID−/anaemia−, 15% ID−/anaemia+, 29% ID+/anaemia−, and 20% ID+/anaemia+ (48%, 39%, 13%, 30% and 18% in HFrEF, respectively). Risk of recurrent all‐cause hospitalizations was higher in patients with ID regardless of anaemia. Of 1959 patients with ID, 19% received FCM (24% in HFrEF). Important independent predictors of ID testing and FCM use were anaemia, higher New York Heart Association class, having HFrEF, and referral to HF specialty care. Conclusion: In this nationwide HF registry, ID testing occurred in only about a quarter of the patients. Among tested patients, ID was present in one half, but only one in five patients received FCM indicating low adherence to current guidelines on screening and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Associations between growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the 'Functional Impact of GLP‐1 for Heart Failure Treatment' (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps. Methods and results: FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF‐15 and change in GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF‐15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938–5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF‐15 were more likely to be male and have more co‐morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02–1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.69, respectively). GDF‐15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide. Conclusions: An increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF‐15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Inappropriate control of blood volume redistribution may be a mechanism responsible for exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We propose to address this underlying pathophysiology with selective blockade of sympathetic signalling to the splanchnic circulation by surgical ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN). Methods and results: In a single‐arm, prospective, two‐centre trial, 10 patients with HFpEF (50% male, mean age 70 ± 3 years) all with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III, left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥15 mmHg at rest or ≥25 mmHg with supine cycle ergometry, underwent ablation of the right GSN via thoracoscopic surgery. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the procedure. The primary endpoint was a reduction in exercise PCWP at 3 months. There were no adverse events related to the blockade of the nerve during 12‐month follow‐up but three patients had significant peri‐procedural adverse events related to the surgical procedure itself. At 3 months post‐GSN ablation, patients demonstrated a reduction in 20 W exercise PCWP when compared to baseline [−4.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval, CI −14 to −2); P = 0.0059], which carried over to peak exercise [−5 mmHg (95% CI −11 to 0; P = 0.016). At 12 months, improvements were seen in NYHA class [3 (3) vs. 2 (1, 2); P = 0.0039] and quality of life assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire [60 (51, 71) vs. 22 (16, 27); P = 0.0039]. Conclusion: In this first‐in‐human study, GSN ablation in HFpEF proved to be feasible, with a suggestion of reduced cardiac filling pressure during exercise, improved quality of life and exercise capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease leads to progressive liver fibrosis and appears to be a frequent co‐morbid disease in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It is well known that liver fibrosis severity predicts future liver‐related morbidity and mortality, but its impact on outcomes in patients with HFpEF remains unknown. This analysis aimed to describe the prevalence of liver fibrosis, as assessed using surrogate biomarkers, in patients with HFpEF and the association of such biomarkers in predicting clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and results: Patients with HFpEF from TOPCAT Americas were included in the analysis. The non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS) and fibrosis‐4 (FIB‐4) scores were calculated using a combination of clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. Risk of advanced fibrosis was classified as low, intermediate, and high. For the 1423 with sufficient data, we used Cox regression analysis to test the association between the risk of fibrosis severity and the combined primary endpoint of all cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, and hospitalization for heart failure. Advanced fibrosis, as determined by high fibrosis scores, was present in 37.57% by the NFS and 8.02% by the FIB‐4. Higher risk of advanced hepatic fibrosis was associated with older age. In unadjusted models, the risk of advanced fibrosis was associated with the primary cardiovascular outcome [NFS high vs. low, hazard ratio (HR) 1.709 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.238–2.358, P = 0.0011) and FIB‐4 high vs. low, HR 1.561 (95% CI 1.139–2.140, P = 0.0056)]. After multivariable adjustment, this association was diminished [NFS high vs. low, HR 1.349 (95% CI 0.938–1.939, P = 0.1064) and FIB‐4 high vs. low, HR 1.415 (95% CI 0.995–2.010, P = 0.0531)]. Conclusions: Our study suggests that advanced liver fibrosis, as estimated by fibrosis risk scores, may not be uncommon in patients with HFpEF, and there appears to be a limited independent association between liver fibrosis risk scores and clinical outcomes related to heart failure events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema. Methods and results: This study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS‐HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter‐quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co‐morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference −1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [−1.71, −0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in‐hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well‐being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3–4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156). Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co‐morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart failure is a major health and economic challenge in both developing and developed countries. Despite advances in pharmacological and device therapies for patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure, their quality of life and exercise capacity are often persistently impaired, morbidity and mortality remain high and the health economic and societal costs are considerable. For patients with heart failure and preserved LVEF, diuretic management has an essential role for controlling congestion and symptoms, even if no intervention has convincingly shown to reduce morbidity or mortality. Remote monitoring might improve care delivery and clinical outcomes for patients regardless of LVEF. A great variety of innovative remote monitoring technologies and algorithms are being introduced, including patient self‐managed testing, wearable devices, technologies either integrated into established clinically indicated therapeutic devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, or as stand‐alone are in development providing the promise of further improvements in service delivery and clinical outcomes. In this article, we will discuss unmet needs in the management of patients with heart failure, how remote monitoring might contribute to future solutions, and provide an overview of current and novel remote monitoring technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation reverse heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Topics include the atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction commonly complicate one another, the more than half of HF cases are due to heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the patients with AF and HFpEF have impaired exercise capacity, increased neurohormonal distress and left atrial volume.

For reference, a 65-year-old patient with a heart rate of 60/min and peak heart rate of 120/min has a heart rate reserve of 0.63. RAPID-HF included 29 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction 40% or greater, and chronotropic incompetence based on a heart rate reserve of less than 0.80 (or <0.62 with use of -blockers). RAPID-HF emphasized that pacing above the critical heart rate along the force-frequency slope can have deleterious effects, even if the achieved heart rate is below the maximum heart rate estimated by the Astrand formula. [Extracted from the article]

Stellate Ganglion Block for Ventricular Arrhythmia Ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), and electrical storm are commonly encountered emergency conditions in cardiac and surgical intensive care units. In most cases, recurrent ventricular arrhythmias or electrical storm are associated with a heightened sympathetic tone. These arrhythmias can be difficult to treat and may be refractory to beta-blockade, antiarrhythmic therapy, sedation, and mechanical hemodynamic support. While monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and PVC-triggered polymorphic ventricular tachycardia may sometimes be amenable to successful ablation, some patients may be too critically ill to make such an approach feasible. We present 2 cases of minimally invasive stellate ganglion blocks for the treatment of electrical storm in patients with advanced heart failure on mechanical life support. These cases are part of a collaborative initiative at our institution to use percutaneous stellate ganglion block as an adjunctive intervention to achieve control of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Permanent ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) has previously been demonstrated to improve quality of life and functional outcomes, as well as reduce abnormally high intracardiac filling pressures, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) at 1, 3 and 12 months following the procedure. We hypothesize that hemodynamic changes that ensue from surgical right GSN ablation would be apparent as early as 24 h after the medical intervention. Methods and Results: This is a prespecified analysis of a single-arm, two-center, open-label study evaluating the effects of right GSN ablation via thoracoscopic surgery in HFpEF patients with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥15 mmHg at rest or ≥25 mmHg with supine cycle ergometry. A total of seven patients (median age 67 years, 29% female) underwent GSN removal followed by invasive right heart catheterization within 24 h. GSN ablation resulted in a significant reduction in PCWP 24 h after the procedure compared to baseline for both 20 W exercise (baseline (28.0 ± 4.3 mmHg) to 24 h (19.6 ± 6.9 mmHg); p = 0.0124) and peak exercise (baseline (25.6 ± 2.4 mmHg) to 24 h (17.4 ± 5.9 mmHg); p = 0.0025). There were no significant changes in resting or leg-up hemodynamics. Conclusions: Permanent right GSN ablation leads to a reduction in intracardiac filling pressures during exercise, apparent as early as 24 h following the procedure. [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]