Outcomes and factors associated with mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: FARAONIC study

Background: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common and coexistent conditions. Hypothesis: To investigate the adverse events and mortality risk factors in patients with AF and HF treated with rivaroxaban in Spain. Methods: Multicenter, prospective and observational study with a follow-up of 2 years, that included adults, with a diagnosis of nonvalvular AF and chronic HF, anticoagulated with rivaroxaban at least 4 months before being enrolled. Results: A total of 672 patients from 71 Spanish centers were recruited, of whom 658 (97.9%) were included in the safety analysis and 552 (82.1%) in the per protocol analysis. At baseline, the mean age was 73.7 +/- 10.9 years, 65.9% were male, 51.3% had HF with preserved ejection fraction and 58.7% were on New York Heart Association functional class II. CHA2DS2-VASc was 4.1 +/- 1.5. During the follow-up, 11.6% of patients died and around one-quarter of patients were hospitalized or visited the emergency department, being HF worsening/progression the main cause (51.1%), with a 2.9% of thromboembolic events and 2.0% of acute coronary syndromes. Major bleeding occurred in 3.1% of patients, with 0.5% experiencing intracranial bleeding but no fatalities. Compliance with HF treatment was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.092; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.31). Conclusions: Among patients with HF and AF anticoagulated with rivaroxaban, incidences of thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications were low. The most important factor for improving survival was compliance with HF drugs, what strengths the need for early treatment with HF disease-modifying therapy and anticoagulation

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: Clinical characteristics, determinants and prognosis. CARDIOCHUS-CHOP registry

Background: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population. Methods: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up. Results: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.286, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.264–4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189–4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046–1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002–1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic etiology. Conclusions: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries: A comprehensive review and future research directions

Acute coronary syndromes constitute a variety of myocardial injury presentations that include a subset of patients presenting with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). This acute coronary syndrome differs from type 1 myocardial infarction (MI) regarding patient characteristics, presentation, physiopathology, management, treatment, and prognosis. Two-thirds of MINOCA subjects present ST-segment elevation; MINOCA patients are younger, are more often female and tend to have fewer cardiovascular risk factors. Moreover, MINOCA is a working diagnosis, and defining the aetiologic mechanism is relevant because it affects patient care and prognosis. In the absence of relevant coronary artery disease, myocardial ischaemia might be triggered by an acute event in epicardial coronary arteries, coronary microcirculation, or both. Epicardial causes of MINOCA include coronary plaque disruption, coronary dissection, and coronary spasm. Microvascular MINOCA mechanisms involve microvascular coronary spasm, takotsubo syndrome (TTS), myocarditis, and coronary thromboembolism. Coronary angiography with non-significant coronary stenosis and left ventriculography are first-line tests in the differential study of MINOCA patients. The diagnostic arsenal includes invasive and non-invasive techniques. Medical history and echocardiography can help indicate vasospasm or thrombosis, if one finite coronary territory is affected, or specify TTS if apical ballooning is present. Intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and provocative testing are encouraged. Cardiac magnetic resonance is a cornerstone in myocarditis diagnosis. MINOCA is not a benign diagnosis, and its polymorphic forms differ in prognosis. MINOCA care varies across centres, and future multi-centre clinical trials with standardized criteria may have a positive impact on defining optimal cardiovascular care for MINOCA patients

CD5L, Macrophage Apoptosis Inhibitor, Was Identified in Epicardial Fat-Secretome and Regulated by Isoproterenol From Patients With Heart Failure

Objectives: Neurohormonal dysfunction, which can regulate epicardial fat activity, is one of the main promoters of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF). Our aim was to study the epicardial fat mediators for AF in patients with HF and its catecholaminergic regulation. Methods: We have included 29 patients with HF who underwent cardiac surgery and were followed up for 5 years. Released proteins by epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) after isoproterenol treatment were identified by nano-high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and triple time-of-flight (TOF) analysis. Common and differential identified proteins in groups of patients with AF before and after surgery were determined by the FunRich tool. Plasma and epicardial fat biopsy proteins were quantified by western blot. Results: Our results identified 17 common released proteins by EAT, after isoproterenol treatment, from HF patients who suffered AF or developed new-onset AF during follow-up. Mostly, they were involved on inflammatory response and extracellular matrix. One of them was CD5L, a macrophage apoptosis inhibitor. Its secretion by isoproterenol treatment was validated on western blot. The CD5L levels on epicardial fat were also higher in the group of male patients who present or develop AF (0.44 +/- 0.05 vs. 0.18 +/- 0.15; p < 0.016). However, there were no differences regarding plasma levels. Conclusion: Our results suggest the role of epicardial fat CD5L as a mediator of AF and its possible paracrine effect by catecholaminergic activity

Prognostic value of discharge heart rate in acute heart failure patients: More relevant in atrial fibrillation?

Aims: The prognostic impact of heart rate (HR) in acute heart failure (AHF) patients is not well known especially in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of admission HR, discharge HR, HR difference (admission-discharge) in AHF patients with sinus rhythm (SR) or AF on long- term outcomes. Methods: We included 1398 patients consecutively admitted with AHF between October 2013 and December 2014 from a national multicentre, prospective registry. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between admission HR, discharge HR and HR difference and one- year all-cause mortality and HF readmission. Results: The mean age of the study population was 72+/-12years. Of these, 594 (42.4%) were female, 655 (77.8%) were hypertensive and 655 (46.8%) had diabetes. Among all included patients, 745 (53.2%) had sinus rhythm and 653 (46.7%) had atrial fibrillation. Only discharge HR was associated with one year all-cause mortality (Relative risk (RR)=1.182, confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.024-1.366, p=0.022) in SR. In AF patients discharge HR was associated with one year all cause mortality (RR=1.276, CI 95% 1.115-1.459, p</=0.001). We did not observe a prognostic effect of admission HR or HRD on long-term outcomes in both groups. This relationship is not dependent on left ventricular ejection fraction. Conclusions: In AHF patients lower discharge HR, neither the admission nor the difference, is associated with better long-term outcomes especially in AF patients

Prognostic value of discharge heart rate in acute heart failure patients: more relevant in atrial fibrillation?

[Abstract] Aims. The prognostic impact of heart rate (HR) in acute heart failure (AHF) patients is not well known especially in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of admission HR, discharge HR, HR difference (admission-discharge) in AHF patients with sinus rhythm (SR) or AF on long- term outcomes. Methods. We included 1398 patients consecutively admitted with AHF between October 2013 and December 2014 from a national multicentre, prospective registry. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between admission HR, discharge HR and HR difference and one- year all-cause mortality and HF readmission. Results. The mean age of the study population was 72 ± 12 years. Of these, 594 (42.4%) were female, 655 (77.8%) were hypertensive and 655 (46.8%) had diabetes. Among all included patients, 745 (53.2%) had sinus rhythm and 653 (46.7%) had atrial fibrillation. Only discharge HR was associated with one year all-cause mortality (Relative risk (RR) = 1.182, confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.024–1.366, p = 0.022) in SR. In AF patients discharge HR was associated with one year all cause mortality (RR = 1.276, CI 95% 1.115–1.459, p ≤ 0.001). We did not observe a prognostic effect of admission HR or HRD on long-term outcomes in both groups. This relationship is not dependent on left ventricular ejection fraction. Conclusions. In AHF patients lower discharge HR, neither the admission nor the difference, is associated with better long-term outcomes especially in AF patients