Atrial fibrillation in heart failure:What should we do?

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are two conditions that are likely to dominate the next 50 years of cardiovascular (CV) care. Both are increasingly prevalent and associated with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost. They are closely inter-related with similar risk factors and shared pathophysiology. Patients with concomitant HF and AF suffer from even worse symptoms and poorer prognosis, yet evidence-based evaluation and management of this group of patients is lacking. In this review, we evaluate the common mechanisms for the development of AF in HF patients and vice versa, focusing on the evidence for potential treatment strategies. Recent data have suggested that these patients may respond differently than those with HF or AF alone. These results highlight the clear clinical need to identify and treat according to best evidence, in order to prevent adverse outcomes and reduce the huge burden that HF and AF are expected to have on global healthcare systems in the future. We propose an easy-to-use clinical mnemonic to aid the initial management of newly discovered concomitant HF and AF, the CAN-TREAT HFrEF + AF algorithm (Cardioversion if compromised; Anticoagulation unless contraindication; Normalize fluid balance; Target initial heart rate <110 b.p.m.; Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone modification; Early consideration of rhythm control; Advanced HF therapies; Treatment of other CV disease)

Rhythm Control in Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Contemporary Challenges Including the Role of Ablation

AbstractBecause nonpharmacological interventions likely alter the risks and benefits associated with rhythm control, this paper reviews the role of current rhythm control strategies in atrial fibrillation. This report also focuses on the specific limitations of pharmacological interventions and the utility of percutaneous ablation in this growing population of patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Study Drug Discontinuation: Post-Hoc Analysis of Findings from ROCKET AF.

IntroductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction endpoints are increasingly important in clinical trials and may be associated with treatment adherence. In this post hoc substudy from ROCKET AF, we examined whether patient-reported satisfaction was associated with study drug discontinuation.MethodsROCKET AF (n = 14,264) compared rivaroxaban with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. We analyzed treatment satisfaction scores: the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM II). We compared satisfaction with study drug between the two treatment arms, and examined the association between satisfaction and patient-driven study drug discontinuation (stopping study drug due to withdrawal of consent, noncompliance, or loss to follow-up).ResultsA total of 1577 (11%) patients participated in the Patient Satisfaction substudy; 1181 (8.3%) completed both the ACTS and TSQM II 4 weeks after starting study drug. Patients receiving rivaroxaban did not experience significant differences in satisfaction compared with those receiving warfarin. During a median follow-up of 1.6 years, 448 premature study drug discontinuations occurred (213 rivaroxaban group; 235 warfarin group), of which 116 (26%) were patient-driven (52 [24%] rivaroxaban group; 64 [27%] warfarin group). No significant differences were observed between satisfaction level and rates of patient-driven study drug discontinuation.ConclusionsStudy drug satisfaction did not predict rate of study drug discontinuation. No significant difference was observed between satisfaction with warfarin and rivaroxaban, as expected given the double-blind trial design. Although these results are negative, the importance of PRO data will only increase, and these analyses may inform future studies that explore the relationship between drug-satisfaction PROs, adherence, and clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00403767.FundingThe ROCKET AF trial was funded by Johnson &amp; Johnson and Bayer

Do Omega-3 fatty acids prevent atrial fibrillation after open heart surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been proposed as a novel treatment for preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation due to their potential anti-inflammatory and anti-arrhythmic effects. However, randomized studies have yielded conflicting results. The objective of this study is to review randomized trials of N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid use for postoperative atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Using the CENTRAL, PUBMED, EMBASE, and LILACS databases, a literature search was conducted to identify all of the studies in human subjects that reported the effects of N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery patients. The final search was performed on January 30, 2011. There was no language restriction, and the search strategy only involved terms for N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (or fish oil), atrial fibrillation, and cardiac surgery. To be included, the studies had to be randomized (open or blinded), and the enrolled patients had to be >18 years of age. RESULTS: Four randomized studies (three double-blind, one open-label) that enrolled 538 patients were identified. The patients were predominantly male, the mean age was 62.3 years, and most of the patients exhibited a normal left atrial size and ejection fraction. N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid use was not associated with a reduction in postoperative atrial fibrillation. Similar results were observed when the open-label study was excluded. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that treatment with N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces postoperative atrial fibrillation. Therefore, their routine use in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is not recommended

Patient and Physician Predictors of FFR/iFR Utilization in ACS and SIHD

Background Despite guidelines supporting FFR/iFR to guide PCI, these modalities remain underutilized. We sought to characterize factors associated with FFR/iFR use in patients undergoing index PCI for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Methods ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients undergoing PCI and receiving FFR/iFR for an ACS (n=1,042,896) or SIHD (n=255,213) in a Medicare claims database from Jan. 1, 2013-June 30, 2018. Patients with functional/anatomical testing were excluded (5d prior in ACS; 60d prior in SIHD). Individuals with FFR/iFR performed 1-60 days prior to PCI were also excluded to limit analysis to non-staged procedures. Results FFR/iFR was performed the same day as PCI in 5.9% and 11.5% of patients with an ACS and SIHD, respectively. FFR/iFR was less likely to be utilized in patients that were \u3e65 years, male, and in those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease or peripheral arterial disease. Of note, a substantial proportion of physicians were non-utilizers of FFR/iFR in ACS (23.9%) and SIHD (18.6%). Use of FFR/iFR was inversely correlated with years since medical school graduation, with the lowest rate observed in physicians \u3e=31 years since graduation (Table). Conclusion This analysis highlights the underutilization of FFR/iFR. Identification of patient- and physician-factors associated with lower rates of FFR/iFR can be helpful to target areas for improvement to increase implementation of this guideline-recommended intervention

Outcomes associated with familial versus nonfamilial atrial fibrillation:a matched nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND: We examined all‐cause mortality and long‐term thromboembolic risk (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic thromboembolism) in patients with and without familial atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registry data, we identified all patients diagnosed with AF (1995–2012) and divided them into those with familial AF (having a first‐degree family member with a prior AF admission) and those with nonfamilial AF. We paired those with and without familial AF according to age, year of AF diagnosis, and sex in a 1:1 match. Using cumulative incidence and multivariable Cox models, we examined the risk of long‐term outcomes. We identified 8658 AF patients (4329 matched pairs) with and without familial AF. The median age was 50 years (interquartile range 43–54 years), and 21.4% were women. Compared with nonfamilial AF patients, those with familial AF had slightly less comorbid illness but similar overall CHA (2) DS (2)‐VASc score (P=0.155). Median follow‐up was 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.5–6.5 years). Patients with familial AF had risk of death and thromboembolism similar to those with nonfamilial AF (adjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.79–1.04] for death and 0.90 [95% CI 0.71–1.14] for thromboembolism). CONCLUSIONS: Although family history of AF is associated with increased likelihood for development of AF, once AF developed, long‐term risks of death and thromboembolic complications were similar in familial and nonfamilial AF patients