Editorial: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

n

Performance of seven ECG interpretation programs in identifying arrhythmia and acute cardiovascular syndrome

Background: No direct comparison of current electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation programs exists. Objective: Assess the accuracy of ECG interpretation programs in detecting abnormal rhythms and flagging for priority review records with alterations secondary to acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: More than 2,000 digital ECGs from hospitals and databases in Europe, USA, and Australia, were obtained from consecutive adult and pediatric patients and converted to 10 s analog samples that were replayed on seven electrocardiographs and classified by the manufacturers' interpretation programs. We assessed ability to distinguish sinus rhythm from non-sinus rhythm, identify atrial fibrillation/flutter and other abnormal rhythms, and accuracy in flagging results for priority review. If all seven programs' interpretation statements did not agree, cases were reviewed by experienced cardiologists. Results: All programs could distinguish well between sinus and non-sinus rhythms and could identify atrial fibrillation/flutter or other abnormal rhythms. However, false-positive rates varied from 2.1% to 5.5% for non-sinus rhythm, from 0.7% to 4.4% for atrial fibrillation/flutter, and from 1.5% to 3.0% for other abnormal rhythms. False-negative rates varied from 12.0% to 7.5%, 9.9% to 2.7%, and 55.9% to 30.5%, respectively. Flagging of ACS varied by a factor of 2.5 between programs. Physicians flagged more ECGs for prompt review, but also showed variance of around a factor of 2. False-negative values differed between programs by a factor of 2 but was high for all (>50%). Agreement between programs and majority reviewer decisions was 46–62%. Conclusions: Automatic interpretations of rhythms and ACS differ between programs. Healthcare institutions should not rely on ECG software “critical result” flags alone to decide the ACS workflow

Atrial Natriuretic Peptides as a Bridge between Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, and Amyloidosis of the Atria

ANP is mainly synthesized by the atria, and upon excretion, it serves two primary purposes: vasodilation and increasing the renal excretion of sodium and water. The understanding of ANP’s role in cardiac systems has improved considerably in recent decades. This review focuses on several studies demonstrating the importance of analyzing the regulations between the endocrine and mechanical function of the heart and emphasizes the effect of ANP, as the primary hormone of the atria, on atrial fibrillation (AF) and related diseases. The review first discusses the available data on the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of ANP and then explains effect of ANP on heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) and vice versa, where tracking ANP levels could lead to understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms operating in these diseases. Second, it focuses on conventional treatments for AF, such as cardioversion and catheter ablation, and their effects on cardiac endocrine and mechanical function. Finally, it provides a point of view about the delayed recovery of cardiac mechanical and endocrine function after cardioversion, which can contribute to the occurrence of acute heart failure, and the potential impact of restoration of the sinus rhythm by extensive ablation or surgery in losing ANP-producing sites. Overall, ANP plays a key role in heart failure through its effects on vasodilation and natriuresis, leading to a decrease in the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but it is crucial to understand the intimate role of ANP in HF and AF to improve their diagnosis and personalizing the patients’ treatment

Longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: implications for clinical practice and health care systems

n/

Glomerular filtration rate in patients with atrial fibrillation and 1-year outcomes

We assessed 1-year outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation enrolled in the EurObservational Research Programme AF General Pilot Registry (EORP-AF), in relation to kidney function, as assessed by glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In a cohort of 2398 patients (median age 69 years; 61% male), eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m(2)) calculated using the CKD-EPI formula was ≥80 in 35.1%, 50-79 in 47.2%, 30-49 in 13.9% and <30 in 3.7% of patients. In a logistic regression analysis, eGFR category was an independent predictor of stroke/TIA or death, with elevated odds ratios associated with severe to mild renal impairment, ie. eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) [OR 3.641, 95% CI 1.572-8.433, p < 0.0001], 30-49 ml/min/1.73 m(2) [OR 3.303, 95% CI 1.740-6.270, p = 0.0026] or 50-79 ml/min/1.73 m2 [OR 2.094, 95% CI 1.194-3.672, p = 0.0003]. The discriminant capability for the risk of death was tested among various eGFR calculation algorithms: the best was the Cockcroft-Gault equation adjusted for BSA, followed by Cockcroft-Gault equation, and CKD-EPI equation, while the worst was the MDRD equation. In conclusion in this prospective observational registry, renal function was a major determinant of adverse outcomes at 1 year, and even mild or moderate renal impairments were associated with an increased risk of stroke/TIA/death

Use of Diltiazem in Chronic Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Case-Control Study

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a multifaceted disease requiring personalised treatment. The aim of our study was to explore the prognostic impact of a patient-specific therapy (PT) for rate control, including the use of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDDC) in patients with heart failure (HF) or in combination with beta-blockers (BB), compared to standard rate control therapy (ST), as defined by previous ESC guidelines. This is a single-centre prospective observational registry on AF patients who were followed by our University Hospital. We included 1112 patients on an exclusive rate control treatment. The PT group consisted of 125 (11.2%) patients, 93/125 (74.4%) of whom were prescribed BB + NDCC (±digoxin), while 85/125 (68.0%) were HF patients who were prescribed NDCC, which was diltiazem in all cases. The patients treated with a PT showed no difference in one-year overall survival compared to those with an ST. Notably, the patients with HF in ST had a worse prognosis (p < 0.001). To better define this finding, we performed three sensitivity analyses by matching each patient in the PT subgroups with three subjects from the ST cohort, showing an improved one-year survival of the HF patients treated with PT (p = 0.039). Our results suggest a potential outcome benefit of NDCC for rate control in AF patients, either alone or in combination with BB and in selected patients with HF