The effects of aetiology on outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy in the CARE-HF trial

Aims: Cardiac dyssynchrony is common in patients with heart failure, whether or not they have ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The effect of the underlying cause of cardiac dysfunction on the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown. This issue was addressed using data from the CARE-HF trial.Methods and resultsPatients (n = 813) were grouped by heart failure aetiology (IHD n = 339 vs. non-IHD n = 473), and the primary composite (all-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) and principal secondary (all-cause mortality) endpoints analysed. Heart failure severity and the degree of dyssynchrony were compared between the groups by analysing baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables. Patients with IHD were more likely to be in NYHA class IV (7.5 vs. 4.0; P = 0.03) and to have higher NT-proBNP levels (2182 vs. 1725 pg/L), indicating more advanced heart failure. The degree of dyssynchrony was more pronounced in patients without IHD (assessed using mean QRS duration, interventricular mechanical delay, and aorta-pulmonary pre-ejection time). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume improved to a lesser extent in the IHD group (4.53 vs. 8.50 and -35.68 vs. -58.52 cm 3). Despite these differences, CRT improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar extent in patients with or without IHD.ConclusionThe benefits of CRT in patients with or without IHD were similar in relative terms in the CARE-HF study but as patients with IHD had a worse prognosis, the benefit in absolute terms may be greater

Atrial fibrillation ablation techniques

n/

Personnel, equipment, and facilities for electrophysiological and catheter ablation procedures in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey

n/

Novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

n/

Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) study: A physician survey of sotalol use and patient monitoring in the EU and USA

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Sanofi Introduction In the recent 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, sotalol was downgraded from a Class IA to a llbA recommendation and advised not to be prescribed in patients with specific co-morbidities. All patients given sotalol should also be closely monitored for proarrhythmic risk factors. To date, American guidelines have not changed. Our study sought to understand the use of sotalol in AF patients and monitoring compliance across the USA and in the EU, with regards to the recent ESC guideline change. Method An online physician survey of cardiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists (EPs) and interventional EPs (N = 569) was conducted in the USA, Germany, Italy and the UK. All respondents were actively treating ≥10 AF patients who received drug therapy and/or who had received or were referred for ablation. This survey included topics on AF types and antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment practices in those with AF +/- co-morbidities (including left ventricular hypertrophy [LVH], LV heart failure, and sinus node dysfunction or renal impairment). Results Sotalol was prescribed across all patient sub-groups, with high use in those with hypertension (49% of physicians) and revascularised coronary artery disease (44%). Sotalol use was consistently higher among US respondents than EU clinicians across co-morbidity categories (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: 25% vs 14% [guideline deviation]; hypertension: 53% vs 44%; valve disease: 33% vs 23%; recent myocardial infarction [MI]: 44% vs 22%; old MI: 52% vs 31%, respectively). Use was also generally higher among EPs compared with cardiologists, but remained low in patients with minimal or no structural heart disease across all groups. Many respondents prescribed sotalol in those with LVH (35%) or renal impairment (22%), despite guidelines advising against this due to proarrhythmia risk. This contrasts with expressed respondent concerns, as 43% cited ventricular proarrythmia risk as a reason for not using sotalol. Although respondents noted concern over such risks, as per the new guidelines, routine monitoring for these factors was not performed as follows: electrocardiograms (ECG) (19% [US: 23%; EU: 15%]), renal function assessment (42% [US: 36%; EU: 50%]) or electrolyte monitoring (48% [US: 49%; EU: 46%]). Respondents reported sotalol is typically initiated in hospital (45% of patients) or in outpatients with intensive ECG monitoring (37%), but is also being started in non-monitored outpatients (19%). Conclusions Although sotalol use among EU clinicians was lower compared with the USA, which may reflect recent ESC guideline changes, the extent of monitoring practices that would indicate avoidance in those with proarrhythmic risk factors was insufficient. The lack of routine monitoring for specific factors, such as renal impairment or electrolytes, and unmonitored outpatient initiation highlights an ongoing need for further education on maximising safety when using AADs. Abstract Figure

Real-world utilization of the pill-in-the-pocket method for terminating episodes of atrial fibrillation: data from the multinational Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Episodes may stop spontaneously (paroxysmal AF); may terminate only via intervention (persistent AF); or may persist indefinitely (permanent AF) (see European and American guidelines, referenced below, for more precise definitions). Recently, there has been renewed interest in an approach to terminate AF acutely referred to as 'pill-in-the-pocket' (PITP). The PITP is recognized in both the US and European guidelines as an effective option using an oral antiarrhythmic drug for acute conversion of acute/recent-onset AF. However, how PITP is currently used has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: The recently published Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey included questions regarding current PITP usage, stratified by US vs. European countries surveyed, by representative countries within Europe, and by cardiologists vs. electrophysiologists. This manuscript presents the data from this planned sub-study. Our survey revealed that clinicians in both the USA and Europe consider PITP in about a quarter of their patients, mostly for recent-onset AF with minimal or no structural heart disease (guideline appropriate). However, significant deviations exist. See the Graphical abstract for a summary of the data. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequent use of PITP and the need for further physician education about appropriate and optimal use of this strategy

Atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes

Atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes