Advertisement

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 325–331 | Cite as

Heart failure progression and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

  • April Slee
  • Marwan Saad
  • Sanjeev SaksenaEmail author
Article
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of heart failure (HF) and vice versa. The impact of rate or rhythm control strategies on HF progression and survival remains unclear.

Methods

We examined the risk of HF progression in AF patients (pts) with a prior HF event and minimal or no HF burden (NYHA class 0 or 1). They were stratified into HF with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40%, pEF) or reduced EF (< 40%, rEF). HF subgroups from the Rate and Rhythm arm were compared for the primary outcome of worsening HF or death (WHFD), total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

Results

Four hundred ninety-two AF pts (HFpEF = 349, HFrEF = 143) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable in the Rate and Rhythm arms of the two subgroups. Over a median follow-up of 4 years, HF recurred and worsened in 66.6% and 41.2% of pts by ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 NYHA classes, respectively. HF progression by even 1 NYHA class increased the mortality risk in HFpEF (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.25–3.4; p = 0.004) and HFrEF (HR 1.9; 95% CI 0.99–3.66; p = 0.054). Cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH) increased in HFpEF (HR 3.67; 95% CI 2.56, 5.25; p < 0.0001) and HFrEF (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.53–5.14; p = 0.0009). HF progression by 2 or more NYHA classes or death was significantly worse in pts with HFrEF with the Rate control strategy compared with the Rhythm control (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.03–2.53; p = 0.036) but similar in pts with HFpEF (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64–1.21; p = 0.440).The time to first AF recurrence was longer in the Rhythm arms of both HF subgroups as compared with Rate (Figure, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

(1) HF progression in AF pts with a prior HF event confers significant mortality and CVH risk in both HFrEF and HFpEF populations. (2) HF progression is more pronounced with a Rate control strategy in AF pts with HFrEF, but is comparable to Rhythm control in AF pts with HFpEF. (3) A Rhythm control strategy may be desirable to reduce HF progression in pts with HFrEF and AF. Prospective clinical trials appear warranted to examine HF progression by treatment strategy in HFpEF and HFrEF populations with AF.

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation Heart failure Clinical trials Rhythm control Outcomes research Heart failure with preserved systolic function 

Notes

Funding

This research study was funded by the Electrophysiology Research Foundation, Warren, NJ.

References

  1. 1.
    The AFFIRM investigators. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. New Eng J Med. 2002;347:1825–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maisel WH, Stevenson LW. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and rationale for therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(Suppl):2D–8D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saksena S, Slee A, Waldo AL, Freemantle N, Reynolds M, Rosenberg Y, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the AFFIRM trial (atrial fibrillation follow-up investigation of rhythm management): an assessment of individual antiarrhythmic drug therapies compared with rate control with propensity score-matched analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1975–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, Wyse DG, Dorian P, Lee KL, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. New Eng J Med. 2008;358:2667–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The AFFIRM Investigators. Relationships between sinus rhythm, treatment, and survival in the atrial fibrillation follow-up investigation of rhythm management (AFFIRM) study. Circulation. 2004;109:1509–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, et al. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obokata M, Olson TP, Reddy YNV, Melenovsky V, Kane GC, Borlaug BA. Haemodynamics, dyspnoea, and pulmonary reserve in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:2810–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Packer M. Questioning the obvious: does dyspnea matter in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:2822–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madsen BK, Hansen JF, Stokholm KH, et al. Chronic congestive heart failure: description and survival of 190 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of chronic congestive heart failure based on clinical signs and symptoms. Eur Heart J. 1994;15:303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dalos D, Mascherbauer J, Zotter-Tufaro C, et al. Functional status, pulmonary artery pressure and clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olsson LG, Swedberg K, Ducharme A, Granger CB, Michelson EL, McMurray J, et al. Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results from the candesartan in heart failure-assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(10):1997–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cikes M, Claggett B, Shah AM, Desai AS, Lewis M, Shah SJ, et al. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2018;6:689–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saksena S, Slee A, Nagarakanti R. Impact of sinus rhythm restoration on cardiovascular outcomes in atrial fibrillation is influenced by quantitative rather than qualitative achievement of sinus rhythm and antiarrhythmic drug selection. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(5, May Supplement):S390 PO05–73.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saksena S, Hettrick DA, Koehler JL, Grammatico A, Padeletti L. Progression of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with bradyarrhythmias. Am Heart J. 2007;154(5):884–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagarakanti R, Saksena S, Hettrick D, Koehler JL, Grammatico A, Padeletti L. Progression of new onset to established persistent atrial fibrillation: an implantable device-based analysis with implications for clinical classification of persistent atrial fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;32(1):7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-011-9601-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedersen OD, Brendorp B, Elming H, Pehrson S, Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C. Does conversion and prevention of atrial fibrillation enhance survival in patients with left ventricular dysfunction? Evidence from the Danish investigations of arrhythmia and mortality on dofetilide (DIAMOND) study. Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003;7(3):220–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trulock A, Narayan S, Piccini J. Rhythm control in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:710–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJ, et al. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2678–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Connolly SJ, Camm AJ, Halperin JL, Joyner C, Alings M, Amerena J, et al. Dronedarone in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(24):2268–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marrouche N, Brachmann J, Andresen D, Siebels J, Boersma L, Jordaens L, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. New Eng J Med. 2018;378:417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Di Biase L, Mohanty P, Mohanty S, et al. Ablation versus amiodarone for treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure and an implanted device: results from the AATAC multicenter randomized trial. Circulation. 2016;133(17):1637–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter RJ, Berriman TJ, Diab I, Kamdar R, Richmond L, Baker V, et al. A randomized controlled trial of catheter ablation versus medical treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure (the CAMTAF trial). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7(1):31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrophysiology Research FoundationWarrenUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations