Prolonged PR interval, first-degree heart block and adverse cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: First-degree atrioventricular block is frequently encountered in clinical practice and is generally considered a benign process. However, there is emerging evidence that prolonged PR interval may be associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to determine if prolonged PR interval is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated clinical outcomes associated with prolonged and normal PR intervals. Relevant studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis for risk of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation and stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Sensitivity analyses were performed considering the population type and the use of adjustments. Results: Our search yielded 14 studies that were undertaken between 1972 and 2011 with 400 750 participants. Among the studies that adjusted for potential confounders, the pooled results suggest an increased risk of mortality with prolonged PR interval risk ratio (RR) 1.24 95% CI 1.02 to 1.51, five studies. Prolonged PR interval was associated with significant risk of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction (RR 1.39 95% CI 1.18 to 1.65, three studies) and atrial fibrillation (RR 1.45 95% CI 1.23 to 1.71, eight studies) but not cardiovascular mortality, coronary heart disease or myocardial infarction or stroke or TIA. Similar observations were recorded when limited to studies of first-degree heart block. Conclusions: Data from observational studies suggests a possible association between prolonged PR interval and significant increases in atrial fibrillation, heart failure and mortality. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationships reported, consider possible mechanisms and define the optimal monitoring strategy for such patients

Ultrafiltration for acute decompensated cardiac failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Ultrafiltration is a method used to achieve diuresis in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) when there is diuretic resistance, but its efficacy in other settings is unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the use of ultrafiltration in ADHF. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated outcomes following filtration compared to diuretic therapy in ADHF. The outcomes of interest were body weight change, change in renal function, length of stay, frequency of rehospitalization, mortality and dependence on dialysis. We performed random effects meta-analyses to pool studies that evaluated the desired outcomes and assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Results A total of 10 trials with 857 participants (mean age 68 years, 71% male) compared filtration to usual diuretic care in ADHF. Nine studies evaluated weight change following filtration and the pooled results suggest a decline in mean body weight − 1.8; 95% CI, − 4.68 to 0.97 kg. Pooled results showed no difference between the filtration and diuretic group in change in creatinine or estimated glomerular filtration rate. The pooled results suggest longer hospital stay with filtration (mean difference, 3.70; 95% CI, − 3.39 to 10.80 days) and a reduction in heart failure hospitalization (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–1.00) and all-cause rehospitalization (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.43–1.86) compared to the diuretic group. Filtration was associated with a non-significant greater risk of death compared to diuretic use (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.77–1.52)

Mode of presentation and mortality amongst patients hospitalized with heart failure? A report from The First Euro Heart Failure Survey

Background: Heart failure is heterogeneous in aetiology, pathophysiology, and presentation. Despite this diversity, clinical trials of patients hospitalized for HF deal with this problem as a single entity, which may be one reason for repeated failures. Methods: The first EuroHeart Failure Survey screened consecutive deaths and discharges of patients with suspected heart failure during 2000–2001. Patients were sorted into seven mutually exclusive hierarchical presentations: (1) with cardiac arrest/ventricular arrhythmia; (2) with acute coronary syndrome; (3) with rapid atrial fibrillation; (4) with acute breathlessness; (5) with other symptoms/signs such as peripheral oedema; (6) with stable symptoms; and (7) others in whom the contribution of HF to admission was not clear. Results: The 10,701 patients enrolled were classified into the above seven presentations as follows: 260 (2%), 560 (5%), 799 (8%), 2479 (24%), 1040 (10%), 703 (7%), and 4691 (45%) for which index-admission mortality was 26%, 20%, 10%, 8%, 6%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Compared to those in group 7, the hazard ratios for death during the index admission were 4.9 (p ≤ 0.001), 4.0 (p < 0.001), 2.2 (p < 0.001), 2.1 (p < 0.001), 1.4 (p < 0.04) and 1.4 (p = 0.04), respectively. These differences were no longer statistically significant by 12 weeks. Conclusion: There is great diversity in the presentation of heart failure that is associated with very different short-term outcomes. Only a minority of hospitalizations associated with suspected heart failure are associated with acute breathlessness. This should be taken into account in the design of future clinical trials

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiac procedure activity in England and associated 30-day mortality

BACKGROUND: Limited data exists on the impact of COVID-19 on national changes in cardiac procedure activity, including patient characteristics and clinical outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: All major cardiac procedures (n = 374,899) performed between 1st January and 31st May for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 were analysed, stratified by procedure type and time-period (pre-COVID: January-May 2018 and 2019 and January-February 2020 and COVID: March-May 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day mortality for procedures performed in the COVID period.Overall, there was a deficit of 45,501 procedures during the COVID period compared to the monthly averages (March-May) in 2018-2019. Cardiac catheterisation and device implantations were the most affected in terms of numbers (n = 19,637 and n = 10,453) whereas surgical procedures such as MVR, other valve replacement/repair, ASD/VSD repair and CABG were the most affected as a relative percentage difference (Δ) to previous years' averages. TAVR was the least affected (Δ-10.6%). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID time-periods for all cardiac procedures except cardiac catheterisation (OR 1.25 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.47, p = 0.006) and cardiac device implantation (OR 1.35 95% CI 1.15-1.58, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac procedural activity has significantly declined across England during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a deficit in excess of 45000 procedures, without an increase in risk of mortality for most cardiac procedures performed during the pandemic. Major restructuring of cardiac services is necessary to deal with this deficit, which would inevitably impact long-term morbidity and mortality

A Critical Evaluation of Patient Pathways and Missed Opportunities in Treatment for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a global problem responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This review describes the patient pathways and missed opportunities related to treatment for patients with HF. RESULTS: The contemporary management strategies in HF, including medical therapies, device therapy, transplant, and palliative care. Despite the strong evidence base for therapies that improve prognosis and symptoms, there remains a large number of patients that are not optimally managed. The treatment of patients with HF is highly influenced by those who are caring for them and varies widely across geographical regions. HF patients can be broadly classified into two key groups: those who have known HF, and those who are incidentally found to have reduced left ventricular systolic dysfunction or other cardiac abnormality when an echocardiogram is performed. While all patients are under the care of a general practitioner or family doctor, in other instances, non-cardiologist physicians, cardiologists, and specialist HF nurses-each will have varying levels of expertise in managing HF-are part of the broader team involved in the specialist management of patients with HF. CONCLUSIONS: There are many potential missed opportunities in HF treatment, which include general opportunities, medications, etiology-specific therapy, device therapy, therapies when initial treatments fail, and palliative care

Mode of presentation and mortality amongst patients hospitalized with heart failure? A report from the First Euro Heart Failure Survey

© 2018, The Author(s). Background: Heart failure is heterogeneous in aetiology, pathophysiology, and presentation. Despite this diversity, clinical trials of patients hospitalized for HF deal with this problem as a single entity, which may be one reason for repeated failures. Methods: The first EuroHeart Failure Survey screened consecutive deaths and discharges of patients with suspected heart failure during 2000–2001. Patients were sorted into seven mutually exclusive hierarchical presentations: (1) with cardiac arrest/ventricular arrhythmia; (2) with acute coronary syndrome; (3) with rapid atrial fibrillation; (4) with acute breathlessness; (5) with other symptoms/signs such as peripheral oedema; (6) with stable symptoms; and (7) others in whom the contribution of HF to admission was not clear. Results: The 10,701 patients enrolled were classified into the above seven presentations as follows: 260 (2%), 560 (5%), 799 (8%), 2479 (24%), 1040 (10%), 703 (7%), and 4691 (45%) for which index-admission mortality was 26%, 20%, 10%, 8%, 6%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Compared to those in group 7, the hazard ratios for death during the index admission were 4.9 (p ≤ 0.001), 4.0 (p < 0.001), 2.2 (p < 0.001), 2.1 (p < 0.001), 1.4 (p < 0.04) and 1.4 (p = 0.04), respectively. These differences were no longer statistically significant by 12 weeks. Conclusion: There is great diversity in the presentation of heart failure that is associated with very different short-term outcomes. Only a minority of hospitalizations associated with suspected heart failure are associated with acute breathlessness. This should be taken into account in the design of future clinical trials