Ethnic differences in atrial fibrillation among patients with heart failure in Asia

10.1002/ehf2.12696ESC Heart Failure741419-142

Circulating plasma concentrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 inmen and women with heart failure and effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors

Aims The current pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infects a wide age group but predominantly elderly individuals, especially men and those with cardiovascular disease. Recent reports suggest an association with use of renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a functional receptor for coronaviruses. Higher ACE2 concentrations might lead to increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 in patients on RAAS inhibitors. Methods and results We measured ACE2 concentrations in 1485 men and 537 women with heart failure (index cohort). Results were validated in 1123 men and 575 women (validation cohort). The median age was 69 years for men and 75 years for women. The strongest predictor of elevated concentrations of ACE2 in both cohorts was male sex (estimate = 0.26, P < 0.001; and 0.19, P < 0.001, respectively). In the index cohort, use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) was not an independent predictor of plasma ACE2. In the validation cohort, ACE inhibitor (estimate = - 0.17, P = 0.002) and ARB use (estimate = -0.15, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of lower plasma ACE2, while use of an MRA (estimate = 0.11, P = 0.04) was an independent predictor of higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. Conclusion In two independent cohorts of patients with heart failure, plasma concentrations of ACE2 were higher in men than in women, but use of neither an ACE inhibitor nor an ARB was associated with higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. These data might explain the higher incidence and fatality rate of COVID-19 in men, but do not support previous reports suggesting that ACE inhibitors or ARBs increase the vulnerability for COVID-19 through increased plasma ACE2 concentrations. © The Author(s) 2020

Prognostic significance of changes in heart rate following uptitration of beta-blockers in patients with sub-optimally treated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm versus atrial fibrillation

Background: In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on sub-optimal doses of beta-blockers, it is conceivable that changes in heart rate following treatment intensification might be important regardless of underlying heart rhythm. We aimed to compare the prognostic significance of both achieved heart rate and change in heart rate following beta-blocker uptitration in patients with HFrEF either in sinus rhythm (SR) or atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the BIOSTAT-CHF study. We evaluated 1548 patients with HFrEF (mean age 67 years, 35% AF). Median follow-up was 21 months. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 9 months. The combined primary outcome was all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation stratified by heart rhythm and heart rate at baseline. Results: Despite similar changes in heart rate and beta-blocker dose, a decrease in heart rate at 9 months was associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome in both SR and AF patients [HR per 10 bpm decrease—SR: 0.83 (0.75–0.91), p < 0.001; AF: 0.89 (0.81–0.98), p = 0.018], whereas the relationship was less strong for achieved heart rate in AF [HR per 10 bpm higher—SR: 1.26 (1.10–1.46), p = 0.001; AF: 1.08 (0.94–1.23), p = 0.18]. Achieved heart rate at 9 months was only prognostically significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rates (p for interaction 0.017 vs. low). Conclusions: Following beta-blocker uptitration, both achieved and change in heart rate were prognostically significant regardless of starting heart rate in SR, however, they were only significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rate. © 2019, The Author(s)

Genetic risk and atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

Aims: To study the association between an atrial fibrillation (AF) genetic risk score with prevalent AF and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure. Methods and results: An AF genetic risk score was calculated in 3759 European ancestry individuals (1783 with sinus rhythm, 1976 with AF) from the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) by summing 97 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) alleles (ranging from 0–2) weighted by the natural logarithm of the relative SNP risk from the latest AF genome-wide association study. Further, we assessed AF risk variance explained by additive SNP variation, and performance of clinical or genetic risk factors, and the combination in classifying AF prevalence. AF was classified as AF or atrial flutter (AFL) at baseline electrocardiogram and/or a history of AF or AFL. The genetic risk score was associated with AF after multivariable adjustment. Odds ratio for AF prevalence per 1-unit increase genetic risk score was 2.12 (95% confidence interval 1.84–2.45, P = 2.15 × 10−24) in the total cohort, 2.08 (1.72–2.50, P = 1.30 × 10−14) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 2.02 (1.37–2.99, P = 4.37 × 10−4) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). AF-associated loci explained 22.9% of overall AF SNP heritability. Addition of the genetic risk score to clinical risk factors increased the C-index by 2.2% to 0.721. Conclusions: The AF genetic risk score was associated with increased AF prevalence in HFrEF and HFpEF. Genetic variation accounted for 22.9% of overall AF SNP heritability. Addition of genetic risk to clinical risk improved model performance in classifying AF prevalence. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology

Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure: Atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction

Aims The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTATCHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF< 40%)], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF >50%) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (ProseekVR Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: In HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84%) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.48, P= 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes. © The Author(s) 2018