Search

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle‐related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non‐modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease‐free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post‐transplant journey. This clinical consensus statement focuses on the importance and the characteristics of prevention and rehabilitation designed for HTx recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant heart failure (HF) remains complex. The Antwerp score, based on four parameters [QRS >120 ms (2 points), known aetiology (2 points), paroxysmal AF (1 point), severe atrial dilation (1 point)] adequately estimated the probability of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after AF ablation in a single-centre cohort. The present study aims to externally validate this prediction model in a large European multi-centre cohort. Methods and results A total of 605 patients (61.1 ± 9.4 years, 23.8% females, 79.8% with persistent AF) with HF and impaired LVEF (<50%) undergoing AF ablation in 8 European centres were retrospectively identified. According to the LVEF changes at 12-month echocardiography, 427 (70%) patients fulfilled the '2021 Universal Definition of HF' criteria for LVEF recovery and were defined as 'responders'. External validation of the score yielded good discrimination and calibration {area under the curve 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–0.89], P <.001; Hosmer–Lemeshow P =.29}. Patients with a score < 2 had a 93% probability of LVEF recovery as opposed to only 24% in patients with a score > 3. Responders experienced more often positive ventricular remodelling [odds ratio (OR) 8.91, 95% CI 4.45–17.84, P <.001], fewer HF hospitalizations (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05–0.18, P <.001) and lower mortality (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04–0.31, P <.001). Conclusion In this multi-centre study, a simple four-parameter score predicted LVEF recovery after AF ablation in patients with HF and discriminated clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of the Antwerp score to standardize shared decision-making regarding AF ablation referral in future clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Exercise training (ET) has been consistently shown to increase peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, inter‐individual responses vary significantly. Because it is unlikely that ET‐induced improvements in peak V̇O2 are significantly mediated by an increase in peak heart rate (HR), we aimed to investigate whether baseline peak O2‐pulse (V̇O2 × HR−1, reflecting the product of stroke volume and arteriovenous oxygen difference), not baseline peak V̇O2, is inversely associated with the change in peak V̇O2 (adjusted by body weight) following ET versus guideline control (CON) in patients with HFpEF. Methods and results: This was a secondary analysis of the OptimEx‐Clin (Optimizing Exercise Training in Prevention and Treatment of Diastolic Heart Failure, NCT02078947) trial, including all 158 patients with complete baseline and 3 month cardiopulmonary exercise testing measurements (106 ET, 52 CON). Change in peak V̇O2 (%) was analysed as a function of baseline peak V̇O2 and its determinants (absolute peak V̇O2, peak O2‐pulse, peak HR, weight, haemoglobin) using robust linear regression analyses. Mediating effects on change in peak V̇O2 through changes in peak O2‐pulse, peak HR and weight were analysed by a causal mediation analysis with multiple correlated mediators. Change in submaximal exercise tolerance (V̇O2 at the ventilatory threshold, VT1) was analysed as a secondary endpoint. Among 158 patients with HFpEF (66% female; mean age, 70 ± 8 years), changes in peak O2‐pulse explained approximately 72% of the difference in changes in peak V̇O2 between ET and CON [10.0% (95% CI, 4.1 to 15.9), P = 0.001]. There was a significant interaction between the groups for the influence of baseline peak O2‐pulse on change in peak V̇O2 (interaction P = 0.04). In the ET group, every 1 mL/beat higher baseline peak O2‐pulse was associated with a decreased mean change in peak V̇O2 of −1.45% (95% CI, −2.30 to −0.60, P = 0.001) compared with a mean change of −0.08% (95% CI, −1.11 to 0.96, P = 0.88) following CON. None of the other factors showed significant interactions with study groups for the change in peak V̇O2 (P > 0.05). Change in V̇O2 at VT1 was not associated with any of the investigated factors (P > 0.05). Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF, the easily measurable peak O2‐pulse seems to be a good indicator of the potential for improving peak V̇O2 through exercise training. While changes in submaximal exercise tolerance were independent of baseline peak O2‐pulse, patients with high O2‐pulse may need to use additional therapies to significantly increase peak V̇O2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Iron deficiency (ID) is linked to reduced aerobic exercise capacity and poor prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, data for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is scarce. We assessed the relationship between iron status and diastolic dysfunction as well as aerobic exercise capacity in HFpEF, and the contribution of iron status to patient phenotyping. Methods and Results: Among 180 patients with HFpEF (66% women; median age, 71 years) recruited for the Optimizing Exercise Training in Prevention and Treatment of Diastolic HF (OptimEx-Clin) trial, baseline iron status, including iron, ferritin, and transferrin saturation, was analyzed (n = 169) in addition to exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake [peak V̇O2]) and diastolic function (E/e′). ID was present in 60% of patients and was more common in women. In multivariable linear regression models, we found that diastolic function and peak V̇O2 were independently related to iron parameters; however, these relationships were present only in patients with HFpEF and ID [E/e′ and iron: β−0.19 (95% confidence interval −0.32, −0.07), p = 0.003; E/e′ and transferrin saturation: β−0.16 (−0.28, −0.04), p = 0.011; peak V̇O2 and iron: β 3.76 (1.08, 6.44), p = 0.007; peak V̇O2 and transferrin saturation: β 3.58 (0.99, 6.16), p = 0.007]. Applying machine learning, patients were classified into three phenogroups. One phenogroup was predominantly characterized by the female sex and few HFpEF risk factors but a high prevalence of ID (86%, p < 0.001 vs. other phenogroups). When excluding ID from the phenotyping analysis, results were negatively influenced. Conclusion: Iron parameters are independently associated with impaired diastolic function and low aerobic capacity in patients with HFpEF and ID. Patient phenotyping in HFpEF is influenced by including ID. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02078947. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Endurance exercise is effective in improving peak oxygen consumption (peak V̇o2) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, it remains unknown whether differing modes of exercise have different effects.Objective: To determine whether high-intensity interval training, moderate continuous training, and guideline-based advice on physical activity have different effects on change in peak V̇o2 in patients with HFpEF.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial at 5 sites (Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich, Germany; Antwerp, Belgium; and Trondheim, Norway) from July 2014 to September 2018. From 532 screened patients, 180 sedentary patients with chronic, stable HFpEF were enrolled. Outcomes were analyzed by core laboratories blinded to treatment groups; however, the patients and staff conducting the evaluations were not blinded.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; n = 60 per group) to high-intensity interval training (3 × 38 minutes/week), moderate continuous training (5 × 40 minutes/week), or guideline control (1-time advice on physical activity according to guidelines) for 12 months (3 months in clinic followed by 9 months telemedically supervised home-based exercise).Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was change in peak V̇o2 after 3 months, with the minimal clinically important difference set at 2.5 mL/kg/min. Secondary end points included changes in metrics of cardiorespiratory fitness, diastolic function, and natriuretic peptides after 3 and 12 months.Results: Among 180 patients who were randomized (mean age, 70 years; 120 women [67%]), 166 (92%) and 154 (86%) completed evaluation at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Change in peak V̇o2 over 3 months for high-intensity interval training vs guideline control was 1.1 vs -0.6 mL/kg/min (difference, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.4 to 2.7]); for moderate continuous training vs guideline control, 1.6 vs -0.6 mL/kg/min (difference, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.9 to 3.1]); and for high-intensity interval training vs moderate continuous training, 1.1 vs 1.6 mL/kg/min (difference, -0.4 [95% CI, -1.4 to 0.6]). No comparisons were statistically significant after 12 months. There were no significant changes in diastolic function or natriuretic peptides. Acute coronary syndrome was recorded in 4 high-intensity interval training patients (7%), 3 moderate continuous training patients (5%), and 5 guideline control patients (8%).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFpEF, there was no statistically significant difference in change in peak V̇o2 at 3 months between those assigned to high-intensity interval vs moderate continuous training, and neither group met the prespecified minimal clinically important difference compared with the guideline control. These findings do not support either high-intensity interval training or moderate continuous training compared with guideline-based physical activity for patients with HFpEF.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02078947. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]