Search

Introduction: The best management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown., Methods and Results: This cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Patients with incident AF occurring between 2000 and 2014 with a prior or concurrent HF were included. Patients with LVEF ≥ 50% were designated as HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those with LVEF < 50% were designated as HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Rhythm control in the first year after AF diagnosis was defined as prescriptions for an antiarrhythmic drug, catheter ablation, or maze procedure. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Of 859 patients (age, 77.2 ± 12.1 years; 49.2%, female), 447 had HFpEF-AF, and 412 had HFrEF-AF. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10-year mortality, 83% vs 79%; p = .54) or secondary endpoints between the HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF, respectively. Compared with the rate control strategy, rhythm control in HFpEF-AF patients (n = 40, 15.9%) offered no survival benefits (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; p = .16), whereas rhythm control in HFrEF-AF patients (n = 52, 22.5%) decrease cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.86; p = .02)., Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF-AF and HFrEF-AF had similar poor prognoses. Rhythm control strategy was seldom adopted in community care in patients with HF and AF. A rhythm control strategy may provide survival benefit for patients with HFrEF-AF and the benefit of rhythm control in patients with HFpEF-AF warrants further study., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: This study assessed trends in the incidence of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in the last 3 decades using a population-based records linkage study., Background: Infection remains an important issue associated with increased implantation rate and dwell time of CIEDs., Methods: We identified a cohort of all adults with CIEDs who resided in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1988 to 2015, using the medical linkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Standardized criteria were used to identify all CIED infection cases. The cumulative rate of CIED infection was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the trends of CIED infection incidence were calculated with person-years of follow-up after device implantation., Results: The cumulative probabilities of overall CIED infection were 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.0% to 8.4%) at 15 years and 11.7% (95% CI: 6.8% to 17.3%) at 25 years of follow-up. The incidence of CIED infection every 7 years from 1988 to 2015 was 1.3, 5.7, 4.1, and 4.7 per 1,000-person years, respectively. The 15-year cumulative probabilities of CIED infection after the initial, second, and third procedures were 2.6% (95% CI: 1.4% to 3.8%), 2.7% (95% CI: 1.2% to 4.2%), and 24.1% (95% CI: 3.8% to 44.4%), respectively. Generator changes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.91; 95% CI: 1.47 to 10.37; p = 0.006) and upgrades (HR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.24 to 7.62; p = 0.02) were significantly associated with infection., Conclusions: The incidence of CIED infection had a trend of increasing in the past 2 decades. Contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapies and repeated manipulation of device pockets introduced a greater risk of CIED infection., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)