Impact of renal impairment on atrial fibrillation: ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and renal impairment share a bidirectional relationship with important pathophysiological interactions. We evaluated the impact of renal impairment in a contemporary cohort of patients with AF. Methods: We utilised the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry. Outcomes were analysed according to renal function by CKD-EPI equation. The primary endpoint was a composite of thromboembolism, major bleeding, acute coronary syndrome and all-cause death. Secondary endpoints were each of these separately including ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic event, intracranial haemorrhage, cardiovascular death and hospital admission. Results: A total of 9306 patients were included. The distribution of patients with no, mild, moderate and severe renal impairment at baseline were 16.9%, 49.3%, 30% and 3.8%, respectively. AF patients with impaired renal function were older, more likely to be females, had worse cardiac imaging parameters and multiple comorbidities. Among patients with an indication for anticoagulation, prescription of these agents was reduced in those with severe renal impairment, p <.001. Over 24 months, impaired renal function was associated with significantly greater incidence of the primary composite outcome and all secondary outcomes. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated an inverse relationship between eGFR and the primary outcome (HR 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01–1.14] per 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrease), that was most notable in patients with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (HR 2.21 [95% CI, 1.23–3.99] compared to eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2). Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients with AF suffer from concomitant renal impairment which impacts their overall management. Furthermore, renal impairment is an independent predictor of major adverse events including thromboembolism, major bleeding, acute coronary syndrome and all-cause death in patients with AF

Clinical complexity and impact of the ABC (Atrial fibrillation Better Care) pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF General Long-Term Registry

Background: Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods: From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results: Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions: An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients

Impact of clinical phenotypes on management and outcomes in European atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients\u2019 clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course. Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward\u2019s Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry. Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients\u2019 prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P <.001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27\u20133.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72\u20134.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32\u20133.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48\u20132.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98\u20133.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74\u20132.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively. Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes

An inverse correlation between TNF alpha serum levels and heart rate variability in patients with heart failure

Background: Recent evidence indicates that chronic heart failure (CHF) is accompanied by both activation of the immune system and autonomic imbalance. There is a growing body of evidence that increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines and other inflammatory markers have important roles as mediators of disease progression and markers of mortality in patients with CHF. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate connection between autonomic imbalance [obtained by analysis of heart rate variability (HRV)] and activation of the immune system [as measured by serum levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α] in patients with chronic heart failure. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study included 21 patients with CHF and 8 age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. We assessed HRV by 24-hour electrocardiographic Holter monitoring and measured serum levels of TNF-α using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Clinical assessment and echocardiography were also performed. Results: There was an inverse correlation between serum level of TNF-α and a time-domain parameter of HRV - SDNN (r= -0.542, p< 0.05). A similar result was found for HRV triangular index, a geometric measure of HRV (r= -0.556; p< 0.05). The correlation was stronger for subjects with a diabetes mellitus, females, and TNFA2 allele carriers (an A at position -308A). The pNN50, indirect marker of cardiac vagal activity, was not significantly associated with serum concentration of TNF-α. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that increased serum TNF-α level is significantly associated with reduced HRV indices, suggesting that activation of the immune system in patients with CHF is closely related to autonomic imbalance. © 2013 Japanese College of Cardiology

Performance of Prognostic Risk Scores in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Objectives: This study compared the performance of major heart failure (HF) risk models in predicting mortality and examined their utilization using data from a contemporary multinational registry. Background: Several prognostic risk scores have been developed for ambulatory HF patients, but their precision is still inadequate and their use limited. Methods: This registry enrolled patients with HF seen in participating European centers between May 2011 and April 2013. The following scores designed to estimate 1- to 2-year all-cause mortality were calculated in each participant: CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality), GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico-Heart Failure), MAGGIC (Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure), and SHFM (Seattle Heart Failure Model). Patients with hospitalized HF (n = 6,920) and ambulatory HF patients missing any variable needed to estimate each score (n = 3,267) were excluded, leaving a final sample of 6,161 patients. Results: At 1-year follow-up, 5,653 of 6,161 patients (91.8%) were alive. The observed-to-predicted survival ratios (CHARM: 1.10, GISSI-HF: 1.08, MAGGIC: 1.03, and SHFM: 0.98) suggested some overestimation of mortality by all scores except the SHFM. Overprediction occurred steadily across levels of risk using both the CHARM and the GISSI-HF, whereas the SHFM underpredicted mortality in all risk groups except the highest. The MAGGIC showed the best overall accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.743), similar to the GISSI-HF (AUC = 0.739; p = 0.419) but better than the CHARM (AUC = 0.729; p = 0.068) and particularly better than the SHFM (AUC = 0.714; p = 0.018). Less than 1% of patients received a prognostic estimate from their enrolling physician. Conclusions: Performance of prognostic risk scores is still limited and physicians are reluctant to use them in daily practice. The need for contemporary, more precise prognostic tools should be considered

Sacubitril/valsartan eligibility and outcomes in the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry: bridging between European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration label, the PARADIGM-HF trial, ESC guidelines, and real world

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%). and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF. Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group