Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Update 2015

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist, adversely affect mortality, and impose a significant burden on healthcare resources. The presence of AF and HF portends a poor prognosis as well as an increased thromboembolic risk. In patients whose AF is symptomatic, rhythm restoration with either antiarrhythmic drugs or procedural therapies (e.g., pulmonary vein isolation, either catheter-based or surgical) should be considered for symptom improvement, though a mortality benefit has yet to be demonstrated. Emerging evidence suggests that non-pharmacological treatment for AF (including catheter based ablation, hybrid surgical techniques, and atrioventricular node ablation with biventricular pacing) may be of value in improving HF patients’ quality of life

Current evidence-based understanding of the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common atrial arrhythmia in adults worldwide. As medical advancements continue to contribute to an ever-increasing aging population, the burden of atrial fibrillation on the modern health care system continues to increase. Therapies are also evolving, for treatment of the arrhythmia itself, and stroke risk mitigation. Internists and cardiologists alike are, in most instances, the frontline contact for AF patients, and would benefit from remaining facile in their understanding of care options. To continue to deliver high-quality care to this expanding patient group, an updated, concise review for the clinician is prudent. This article provides a comprehensive summary of the current epidemiology and pathophysiology of AF, as well as contemporary procedural therapeutic options

Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist and adversely affect mortality when found together. AF begets HF and HF begets AF. Rhythm restoration with antiarrhythmic drugs failed to show a mortality benefit but can be effective in improving symptoms. Nonpharmacologic treatment of AF may be of value in the HF population

The state of the art: atrial fibrillation epidemiology, prevention, and treatment

As the most common sustained arrhythmia in adults, atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established and growing epidemic. To provide optimal patient care, it is important for clinicians to be aware of AF's epidemiological trends, methods of risk reduction, and the various available treatment modalities. Our understanding of AF's pathophysiology has advanced, and with this new understanding has come advancements in prevention strategies as well as pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment options. Following PubMed and MEDLINE searches for AF risk factors, epidemiology, and therapies, we reviewed relevant articles (and bibliographies of those articles) published from 2000 to 2016. This “state-of-the-art” review provides a comprehensive update on the understanding of AF in the world today, contemporary therapeutic options, and directions of ongoing and future study

Utility of serial measurement of biomarkers of cardiovascular stress and inflammation in systolic dysfunction

Evidence links markers of systemic inflammation and heart failure (HF) with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and/or death. Biomarker levels, and the risk they indicate, may vary over time. We evaluated the utility of serial laboratory measurements of inflammatory biomarkers and HF, using time-dependent analysis.We prospectively enrolled ambulatory patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and a primary-prevention implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Levels of established inflammatory biomarkers [C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), suppression of tumourigenicity 2 (ST2), tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α)] and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were assessed at 3-month intervals for 1 year. We assessed relationships between biomarkers modelled as time-dependent variables, VA, and death. Among 196 patients (66±14 years, LVEF 23±8%), 33 experienced VA, and 18 died. Using only baseline values, BNP predicted VA, and both BNP and ST2 predicted death. Using serial measurements at 3-month intervals, time-varying BNP independently predicted VA, and time-varying ST2 independently predicted death. C-statistic analysis revealed no significant benefit to repeated testing compared with baseline-only measurement. C-reactive protein, ESR, and TNF-α, either at baseline or over time, did not predict either endpoint.In stable ambulatory patients with systolic cardiomyopathy and an ICD, BNP predicts ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and ST2 predicts death. Repeated laboratory measurements over a year's time do not improve risk stratification beyond baseline measurement alone.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01892462 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01892462)